Comments by "Michael Deierhoi" (@michaeldeierhoi4096) on "Tonga volcano: How much damage did it cause? | DW News" video.

Maybe in your mind while you were doing drugs, but not in reality!!
3
@MarjanVukovic Not near enough SO2 and ash produced from the volcano to affect climate. That takes a large and prolonged eruption such as Mt Pinatubo erupting in 1991.
2
No comparison because Tambora Volcano which when it erupted was rated as the only eruption with a rating of 7 on the Volcano Explosivity Index in the last 1000 years or so. It was the most destructive eruption in several centuries. The ash and sulphur dioxide was thrown into the upper atmosphere cooling the climate by a couple degrees globally. 90,000 people died from starvation because crops were ruined by ash fall. The Tonga was a massive explosive mostly because of the magma encountering sea water. Water expands its volume 70 times when converted to steam. Imagine millions of gallons of water converted to steam suddenly. There was not much ash and minimal lava from this explosion. Most of the cloud was vaporized water with some sulphur dioxide. Not near of the later to cool the climate.
2
An explosive eruption like this is pretty rare. This eruption is thought to be one of the most powerful in a century.
2
There is of course no evidence for that, but there is for an explosive eruption.
2
Thank you science geeks. That's the world needs more of to counter all the disinformation out there!!
2
@jasonlarsen4945 The CO2 emissions from human activity amount to 36 billion tonnes per year. This is up to 100 times the amount of CO2 produced by all the volcanoes in the world in a year. The atmospheric CO2 had been stable at 270 ppm since the end of the ice age 10,000 years ago. In the last 150 years that CO2 level has risen to 420 ppm now and increasing 2--3 ppm per year. As CO2 accumulates so too does its ability to retain heat. And the consequence is the increasingly frequent extreme weather around the world in the form of more heat waves, floods, forest fires and hurricanes. The warmer waters in the Gulf and Atlantic allow the hurricanes to get large and stronger then they use to. And they also ramp up to powerful storms faster. The ph of ocean water is also declining at a record rate resulting in an increasing threat to sea life. The pH has fallen from an average of 7.3 to 7.2 which doesn't seem like much but because the pH scale is logarithmic the decrease amounts to a decline in pH of 30%!! This is all well documented however we know the conspiracy theory or right wing news sites would say otherwise, but they can't back up any of their claims with evidence.
2
The images of the eruption came from the Himawira 8 satellite which is in geosynchronous orbit over that spot, but it can see almost half of the earth because of the high altitude of 35,800 kms . That satellite takes a shot every ten minutes which gives a sense of how fast the eruption occured. That plume grew to about 160 kms across in about an hour.
1
The death toll is a barometer for the level of damage and destruction done to a region whatever the cause is. This has been going on for generations. And knowing the number killed can raise awareness to find ways to reduce the number in future natural disasters.
1
@ericcampbell6261 A lot of people build near volcanoes because they perceive a low risk of eruption AND the climate is beautiful. Kilauea has erupted frequently however people lived in some areas for decades until couple years ago when an eruption destroyed much of the neighborhood. And many countries such as Indonesia and Philippines with dozens of active volcanoes people get a benefit living a volcano because ash can enhance soil fertility. Plus the dangerous eruptions are not so frequent and people are willing to take the risk. If there is an eruption people can usually escape without too many casualties. The issue of not living near the Tonga volcano is not the issue here of course. People live on islands 60 kms away. Again, beautiful climate and unlikely threat from a volcano. Earthquakes are a much bigger risk and of course very unpredictable though some areas are much more vulnerable to major earthquakes such as Indonesia. The Tohoku earthquake in 2011 was probably a bigger threat to Tonga then any volcano. And typhoons are much more common then either.
1
Some people love to catastrophise for their own self-serving purposes.
1
The last time Yellowstone erupted was 600,000 years which is about the average time between eruptions. So Yellowstone is pretty low on the list of likely concerns.
1
@aron1332 Conspiracy theory wonks think evidence is their opinion. 🤣😅😂
1
FYI. Incorrect. Correct naiv. naive divertion. diversion reaktion. reaction canarian iland Canary Island sprenghts I haven't a clue?? Your welcome!!! 😂😅
1
@davidford3115 That's a new fairy tale about carbon I hadn't heard before, but anyway the reality is wholly different. The oil and coal mostly comes from a specific layer of sediment defined as the Carboniferous Era when trees were growing throughout the earth. The Carboniferous Period ran from 360 million years ago to 300 million years ago. Thus the period went on for 60 million years. Eventually of course these trees died and were covered with new layers of sediment. Over time that dense plant matter degraded/fossilized into oil and coal. Peat bogs are also an early form of decomposing plant matter. Peat can be burned as a fuel though it is not as efficient as oil or coal. At any rate when oil or mining companies extract these raw materials they are digging/drilling right down to that Carboniferous layer laid over 330 million years ago. You can find this out in a historical geology text and numerous other sources, but no resource will tell you of any significant amount of carbon was present in the soil 4 billion years EXCEPT in the atmosphere. The early earth is thought to have had a CO2 level of 25---50% which would be lethal to life now. That carbon in the atmosphere was eventually bound up in the soil and trees that began to grow much later in Earth's history.
1
@davidford3115 You have just demonstrated the classic climate change denier tactic of invoking a straw man to justify your argument. But, I can see it's not worth pointing out the details as you obviously think you know it all. Good luck with that. Have a nice day.
1
@davidford3115 Your argument against climate science science has a fundamental flaw in it and that it is the consensus of climate scientists who have done the research to back up their claims. You have obviously never looked at the research or the science because otherwise you wouldn't make that statement. The vast majority of climate scientists support the well understood connection that human production of green house gases has allowed their gradual accumulation to the point that they can retain more heat. And with that comes all of the associated problems of heat waves, drought, flooding, larger more intense hurricanes and so on. And you can say that we have had all those things before, but now those extreme weather events are more frequent. Nature has Loaded The Dice by our actions!! Now instead one of each number on the die there are now two ones so to speak.
1
@davidford3115 Funny how you quote Michael Crichton who was an arch critic of climate change. And your memory of history of such things as E=MC² is missing a major element. Using Einstein's Theory of Relativity is well accepted now, but when it is was first proposed it was not recognized for what it was as a seminal break through in physics for quite a few years. The E=MC² equation only became more accepted BECAUSE the community of physicists recognized it for what it was. The general public didn't understand relativity at all. In fact it is only in the last few decades with computers and exchange of information that a lot of people understand relativity basics. So you are projecting acceptance of a scientific principle in the present into the past when that acceptance took a while. And the same is true of climate change which has made it even more accepted among the scientific community. Many climate scientists were doing good work back in 80's but it took someone like James Hansen formerly with NASA to make the case to Congress and to the world. Unfortunately, Congress and the world were slow to catch on but the concerns do seem to be accelerating. The US military recognizes that climate change will create major security risks around the world thus they taking measures to cut fuel use and increase efficiency through technology. China leads the world in solar power cell production to make their economy more efficient as a hedge against climate change. Look at the renewable resources going up all over country in direct response to the need the cut air pollution from burning coal especially but also because those fossil fuels are adding CO2 to the atmosphere which is warming the climate. The evidence is right in front of all of us.
1