As I understand it, there are some 25 volcanoes erupting at any given time and air lines take care to go around and uasually without problems.

In this case this eruption is spilling the ash over an area where there is a lot of air traffic.

If it keeps erupting the airlines will fly to other places and people will find other means of travel to the places shut down. In the meantime actual tests will be done to find out what is dangerous and what is not. Someone will start to test the validity of ash damage to aircraft engines. We will learn to cope, however long the eruption lasts.

I think Krakotoa, in Indonesia, was the known largest volcanoe and the biggest bang known to man. It blew 50 cubic miles of rock into dust and the dust gave Russia record cold winters for 3 years. Even caused a tidal surge in the English channel. It was huge. We are puny compared to mother nature and some think that we are so important that we can alter the earths climate. By twitching her little finger nature has shown she can alter the lives of millions.

StG, let’s put your hypothetical into perspective.

Global volcanic activity emits on average about 300 million tons of CO2 each year.
Human activity currently emits about 30,000 million tons of CO2.

In other words (maybe interesting to Banjo) – the planet would need about 210 “winaprizeifyoucanpronounceit” volcanoes to belch out EVERY hour for 365 days just to match what human activity does.

One problem StG ... human activity is increasing CO2-e emissions exponentially – not so volcanoes.

And yes Banjo, we are altering the climate ... whether you believe it or not.

You might be interested in this (check out the Tambora eruption in 1815 and tell us if it coincides with the Thames freezing over).

http://tinyurl.com/whoppas

StG, the Icelandic volcano is minuscule compared.

Funny isn't it.

Those bl00dy computer modellers again.

World financial system.

Global warming.

Volcanic dust cloud drift.

Can't those blokes get anything right?

I burped the theme to Gilligans Island before. That should've offset something.

Well, I dont like to cause undue alarm, but we are all going to die. The volcano will get bigger and bigger, and despite all Bjorks protestations, it will erupt in a massive pyroclastic flow which will obscure the suns rays, and we will all die a fiery death and perish in a hellish inferno for all eternity. But on the bright side, it will save future generations from the horrors of catastrophic climate change, and when we run out of metallic ore resources and petrochemicals as predicted to happen in 1973. Might be a good time to establish a volcanic outgassing emissions trading scheme, except, didnt Iceland go broke and take Britain with it?

StG wrote 20 April 2010 9:45:04 PM:

>So, what happens if it keeps burning?

If the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in Iceland continued to erupt at about the rate it has <: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyjafjallaj%C3%B6kull> this would continue to disrupt flights of jet engined aircraft in Europe, and depending on wind direction, possibly North America as well. It is likely that better detection and prediction of the ash cloud and its effect on aircraft would allow for less interruption to flights.

This could have more effect on North America than on Europe. The USA and Canada use aircraft for high speed transport of people and goods, whereas Europe has a well established very high speed rail network.

It is likely that the European rail network could be quickly expanded to carry more more people (Eurostar has sp[are trains) and freight (the French Post Office already has its own dedicated TGV trains for carrying mail and parcels). On my last few trips to Europe, I was able to travel around the content by rail: http://www.tomw.net.au/travel/tourist.htm#europe

High speed ferries could also be used. Australia would do well out of that as it dominates the world market for large high speed ferries and is the main supplier to the US DoD: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/2009/02/australian-design-selected-for-us.html