NO SNOW!!

<br>the article makes no mention of carbon dioxide emissions from the volcano.

<br>You guys . . . we really should talk about something else. The article did mention carbon dioxide, hyak just didn't post the full article. An excerpt from this article that mentions CO2:<br>

And they churn out large quantities of carbon dioxide. Though not considered an air pollutant, carbon dioxide is the so-called greenhouse gas that's primarily blamed for global warming. <br><br>Compared to man-made sources, though, volcanoes' contribution to climate change is minuscule, Gerlach said. <br><br>Mount St. Helens produces between 500 and 1,000 tons a day of carbon dioxide, he estimates.

<br>See the full thing here:<br> seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews...5397_volcano01m.html

Volcanoes indeed release loads of CO2 but so do our SUVs.

Anyway lets talk about something less polarizing. How about your state's governor race? Any predictions on how long it’ll take before we see a soviet-style dioxide poisoning? ;-)

Hey - I found a website that says it might snow in in the Cascades in a few days, and since I'm pro-snow, I'll quote them!<br><br>"Christmas day: Snow. Snow level 2000 feet. Afternoon pass temperatures in the lower 30s" per NWS<br><br>I dare anyone to differ...<br><br>PS unless I'm misreading, the Seattle times seems to say that it wouldn't take too many '90s era coal power plants to equal Mt St Helens, so in this case the original source was indeed illuminating! Thanks for sharing.

I'm impressed by the scientific and observational powers of the bc skiers posting here. Generous application of heat and light. How about this for an unscientific approach to personal energy use (and fitness) to reduce fossil fuel use:  <br>Compare your total annual muscle powered miles (walk, ski, bike, run, hike, row, paddle) to your machine powered miles for every thing you do.  Maybe factor down carpooling and public transit. See how high you can get the ratio. <br>or, more simply, compare a log of recreational/commuting muscle powered mileage with your annual car odometer mileage.<br>or, less challenging: <br>Compare your muscle powered time in motion to your machine powered time (inverse of the boot-to-butt ratio).<br><br><br>

I like your approach to this subject, Don_B  Although it must be hard to outdo the number of miles we drive by doing mileage on the bike, skates, running, swimming, skiing, etc anually we can only do our best with the time we have. <br><br> Unless you're Lance Armstrong who busts out more mileage (over 25,000 miles) on his bike alone than most people do in their cars and trucks anually, I can see how it would be hard for average Joe to outdo his/her driving mileage.  <br><br>Amount of time spent doing physical activity versus time spent behing the wheel, that's a ratio most of us can improve on. Then again if your job requires physical labor, that counts as physical activity as well.  <br><br>Best way to do this:  Skin, hike, and climb for your turns!   <br><br><br><br><br><br> <br>

I have a few friends that don't understand the connection between global warming and the last few dozen ice ages and subsequent retreats.  So what's the best way to explain this to them?  ???

<br><br>Send them a copy of September (or was it October?) National Geographic. The entire issue is devoted to Climate Change and explains things like Milankovitch cycles as well as the anthropogenic factors.

cascadesfreak is spot on regarding volcanos, aerosols and greenhouse gases. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is hard to remove from the atmosphere. It contributes to warming by absorbing radiation leaving the Earth. Volcanos spew out aerosols that are shorter lived in the atmosphere (years to decades). They certainly affect the climate, and if they are continuously generated (say the polution from industry) they will have some effect on climate. They have a poorly understood interaction with water vapor in the air and clouds. It appears they contribute to cooling by producing more clouds and haze.<br><br>Volcanos also produce CO2, but as others have pointed out their total production is far less than human's.<br><br>

---

<br><br>The Kyoto Protocol and what to do about global warming is a touchy subject. I think Skip hits the nail on the head when he argues about fairness and economic feasibility. We can't hold poorer countries to the same standard we hold ourselves. It isn't fair. I personally think the US is being extremely shortsighted when they refuse to step up and confront the problem (and this includes YOU if you don't pressure your lawmakers to do something about it, or YOU if you don't take personal measures to solve the problem). Fossil fuels will run out in a few decades or more (see recent National Geographic) and we will be forced to come up with a solution. Who ever owns the technology to produce the energy of the future will have an enormous advantage economically. Jobs, prosperity. It won't hurt the economy, it will help (like Lowell said). We should be getting a head start now.<br><br>We are also being shortsighted because global warming will have a negative economic effect - droughts, severe storms, rising oceans (think New Orleans; there was an excellent article in National Geographic a few months ago about this). It's easier to solve the problem before it gets out of hand.<br><br>

---

<br><br>TonyM - you asked a very important question. The paleoclimate record is wacky and we can't explain the entire thing. There are seemingly unforced "rapid climate changes" (not as rapid as in "The Day After Tomorrow", but decades to centuries) we cannot explain. As someone who has spent a great deal of time thinking about climate change (I'd probably consider my occupation a climate researcher) this is what scares me the most. That there is some strange non-linearity we haven't thought about and it is going to bite us in the ass.