The MODIS/AQUA rapidfire website finally had a pass overhead online early this AM of the Ethiopian/Eritrean area volcanic eruption of Nabro, and I have them below. The plume stretches well over 1000 miles now. In the photo below, the Red Sea is prominent north of the volcano.
The zoomed image below the “read more” line is quite dramatic.
I have acquired and cropped the 250 meter resolution scan (thanks to all the reader tips), and the imagery is quite dramatic, and shows the eruption continues unabated:
More details on the eruption here
I’m sure we’ll have a sulfur dioxide estimate, and perhaps an ESA image of it in the next few days. It appears that we are in quite an active period of vulcanism, with several eruptions worldwide in recent weeks.
UPDATE: Reader FergalR gives us this near real-time satellite image of the SO2 plume:
Looks like a Pinatubo redux. Equatorial SO2 has a pronounced effect. The length and volume of the eruption remains to be determined.
Source: http://www.temis.nl/aviation/so2/omi/2011/06/13/omi_vcd20110613_000_srl_lr.png
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
cross posted
So with the volcano erupting spewing S02 into the stratosphere we should believe thusly:
1. If there is a drop in temperature that is within “normal variations” for the past millions of years, then the drop
is “explained” by “natural variation”. There is no need to look at the volcano as the source of the cooling. After all the cooling, if it occurs, will be within the range of “natural variability”. Nothing here to see, the earth cools all the time.
2. If a model successfully predicts this cooling, there is also no point to that. Chaos rules and that means we can say nothing about the trajectory that external forcings have on the system. Heck, even if the sun were to double its output we cannot predict that it will get warmer, because well, Chaos rules.
Must be all the extra surface heat from anthropogenic CO2 is softening up the hardened-lava plugs atop the world’s volcanoes making them more likely to pop.
“Yeahhh! That’s the ticket!”
SNL will eventually find climate boffins and CAGW to be an inexhuastible supply of comedic material.
steven mosher says:
June 13, 2011 at 11:51 am
Both the sun and volcanoes naturally vary in cycles.
The interesting aspect of this is that they are part of the natural variations.
Quick, we must stop this. The only way is to sacrifice somebody to the angry volcano gods. I nominate Hansen.
Anthony,
Can anyone do a review of the land based active volcanoes globally on just one day (let’s pick 1 July and provide a table of how much CO2, SO2, NO2, water and whatever else is significant they are pumping out. On the same day can we have an equivalent estimate of the human contribution (say by continent)
Here’s a pretty thorough article about the Nabro eruption.
http://www.irishweatheronline.com/news/earthquakesvolcanos/ash-cloud-spreads-from-erupting-nabro-volcano-in-eritrea/19983.html
Not a peep yet from the Wall Street Journal…
Dave Springer says: June 13, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Must be all the extra surface heat from anthropogenic CO2 is softening up the hardened-lava plugs atop the world’s volcanoes making them more likely to pop.
You do realize that CO2 forms carbonic acid in H2O, and with 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere the acidified rain is dissolving the basalt plugs on the volcanoes. With the extra surface heat you note, it is simply happening faster. /sarc
FergalR says:
June 13, 2011 at 11:03 am
What is it with these people and volcanoes
Let them stay away from Yellowstone.
Rbateman. You dont get it.
Look at the temperature record. You see that dip around pinatubo? Now, let’s apply the skeptical logic to that.
The first thing we will do is look back and see that these kinds of small dips occur ALL THE TIME. And so if we apply the Willis and Smokey Null, we will conclude that there is nothing special about this dip. Nothing here to explain that is not explained by the blanket statement “natural variation”. And if somebody says, it’s due to a volcano, we can merely say, that this dip is nothing special and needs no explanation.
If we explain that the dip is small BUT can be explained by radiative physics, and if we show you models that simulate the effect, then if people were consistent they would complain about using models to show this kind of thing. If the model predicted .3C of cooling and we only saw .2C of cooling, people would argue that the models are falsified.
As the sun varies, and volcanos vary, so too do GHGs vary. All the variation is “natural”. There isnt a supernatural cause of varying GHGs. Geology, Chemistry,Biology all drive the GHG content. One of those natural factors is MAN. Man changes the makeup of the atmosphere. the makeup of the atmosphere is a contributor to the surface temperature. That temperature changes naturally. The natural causes, man, the sun, volcanos, are hard to isolate and quantify because we cannot perform controlled experiments. But we do know that volcanos cool the planet cooler than it would be if they didnt block the sun, and we know that GHGs warm the planet warmer than it would be if they didnt raise the effective radiating height.
The question is always how much. Our best guess about 3C per doubling of c02
The problem with a best guess, is that it’s still a guess.
That all other things considered, CO2 will cause the world to warm is not doubted.
The question is, once you take into fact the inconvenient truth that all other things are never equal, what is the likely warming caused by CO2.
Warmists like to assume that the world is dominated by positive feedbacks, hence the claim that the total warming will be more, sometimes much more than the warmer by CO2 alone.
Unfortunately again, there is no real world evidence showing that this assumption is true. In fact all actual, real world, studies that have been done to date, show that the planet is dominated by negative feedbacks, which would mean that the total warming will be less than the ~1C warming predicted by Arhenius’s equations alone.
steven mosher says:
June 13, 2011 at 1:37 pm
———————————
Pinatubo was a net -2.5 to -3.0 W/m2 (nobody can quite agree on the number so close enough) and temperatures fell by -0.5C.
Doubled CO2 produces +3.71 W/m2 and is supposed to increase temperatures by +3.0C.
Some math issues there.
There are quite a few volcanoes popping off just now:
http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/usgs/
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/2011164/lst1.A2011164074000-2011164074500.2km.jpg
The above link is an image of the plume i just viewed in LST.
Am I reading that graph correctly? The legend below the graph suggests the plume from Nabro is -30 Celsius?
Stephen Mosher says… “Our best guess about 3C per doubling of c02”
Yes, that is your best guess. The problem is that the guess is demonstratively a load of dung. Everyone knows, even you. It was funny for awhile, but now it is rather sad. Please quit peddling the pooh.
What’s the VEI rating on this one?
Well, from what I’m seeing of the sparse information coming out about this eruption so far it looks like a (VAAC) 13.5 km plume. Low stratosphere. It has settled down from the initial explosive eruption, occasionally puffing back up a bit. Still impressive and who knows what tomorrow will be like. Not quite a 34 km Pinatubo so far it appears from what I can find. Seems doubtful there are no casualties but…
Eritrea volcano eruption : Good news from the Eritrean government – No casualties
http://earthquake-report.com/2011/06/12/unusual-series-of-moderate-volcanic-earthquakes-in-eritrea-and-ethiopia/
Re: ClimateForAll – “Ami I reading that graph correctly? The legend below the graph suggests the plume from Nabro is -30 Celsius?”
If it were a powerful plume, blasting up 45-50,000′ (or higher), temps at the top would cool to ambient, which is pretty cool that high. Look at the temps for tops of thunderstorms as an analog. Cheers –
At least Mosher calls humans “natural”. I suppose he deserves some credit for that…
…now if he could only understand the null hypothesis.☺
If Mt. Nabro becomes an ultra-Plinian eruption it may depress temperatures over the next year or so. However, it may also increase the chances of the onset of another El Nino in 2012-13.
steven mosher says:
June 13, 2011 at 1:37 pm
I get the law of diminishing returns. For each doubling of CO2, you get a fraction of the previous increase.
Anyway, the biosphere is going to eat it. I suppose this might not be true on a Planet without life to consume CO2 (that originally came from biomass that had ample CO2 as part of it’s food supply).
steven mosher says:
June 13, 2011 at 1:37 pm
The question is always how much. Our best guess about 3C per doubling of CO2.”
I have seen that current CO2 in the atmosphere is at about 390 ppm. When can we expect it to reach 780 ppm? Will this be from using coal (now unpopular) or oil (now said to be running out)? There are various gases (some natural, some converted in some manner from non-gas sources). I’m just wondering as to the where, when, and how this 780 ppm will come about.
SO2 5KM map – actively updated
http://satepsanone.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/OMI/OMISO2/images/OMI_ME_SO2_DDC2.GIF
We here in New Zealand are now having planes grounded – by the Chilean eruption. The ash has travelled right around the globe to muck up our skies.
What with that and yesterdays earthquakes (now rated 6.3 and 5.7 and both very close to Christchurch) we feel that nature really has got it in for us!
John says:
June 13, 2011 at 9:52 pm
It’s headed straight for Libya and Moamar’s place.
For the MSM not to notice this amounts to sleepwalking.