2007-12-31 11:40:06 · 13 answers · asked by Bo Gus 2 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Some cool the planet some warm it. A nuclear war its more reliable for global cooling.
2007-12-31 11:53:21 · answer #1 · answered by anoymus 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. As large as the volcanoes are on Iceland, they aren't exactly supervolcanoes. If Katla pops off (which appears less and less likely), its effects will likely be similar to the current one that I can't spell. A sub-glacial eruption, lots of melting water rolling to the sea, lots of ash... but with the prevailing winds, it would most likely keep it out of Reykjavik just as the current one is doing now. It would suck to have a farm nearby, but who the hell moves to Iceland to start a farm in the first place? It would be very good for scientific and eco-tourism.
2016-04-02 05:18:20 · answer #2 · answered by Diane 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
whos we? and valcanos need virgins dude to cool off?
2007-12-31 15:58:30 · answer #3 · answered by WordBarker/singlething 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why would you want to cool the planet. Much better with the assumed Global Warming. Just think, Greenland will be green again. more land for agriculture, they use to grow grapes in the Northern Hemisphere, less starvation in the world. less back braking snow and ice to shovel in the winter hear in the northeast.
2007-12-31 15:04:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A volcanoe went off a year or so ago (a small one) and it was determined that the amount of green house gassed released in that one small eruption set back the healing of the ozone layer by almost 4 years...
A volcanoe going off adds particulate matter to the atmosphere that leads to issues in climate on a world wide scale...
It would be A VERY bad thing to have volcanoes go off...
Like the Super Volcano in Yellowstone National Park.
If it went off the world would pretty much be S.O.L.
If it went off then CHICAGO would be under 6 feet of ash!
Not a happy idea... and THAT volcano is 60+ years behind schedule in going off... Think about that the next time you hear a rant about global warming!
2007-12-31 13:29:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, for a few years each.
The climate models include past volcanos and forecast some reasonable number and size into forward-looking predictions. The forecasts have to be adjusted as real volcanos happen and the forecasted ones don't, so the revised forward-looking view, a range of probable outcomes, is as accurate as possible.
Since volcanos emit primarily sulfur dioxide, one of the mitigation strategies proposed is to fire cannons with sulfur to explode in the stratosphere and create similar dust and a light-scattering effect.
2007-12-31 12:31:18 · answer #6 · answered by J S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. all the molten lava and loss of trees would heat it up !
2007-12-31 12:16:24 · answer #7 · answered by lonewolf 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It would certainly be more effective than "eating locally grown vegetables".
2007-12-31 12:14:05 · answer #8 · answered by Agent 00Zero 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Actually volcanoes would add to the amount of carbon dioxide in the air and further insulate the earth, making it even hotter.
2007-12-31 11:50:09 · answer #9 · answered by jimbobjrbob 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. It would cause a short term drop in termperatures. But volcanic dust doesn't stay in the atmosphere for more than a year or two--if that long. After wich temperatures go right back up again.
2007-12-31 11:45:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋