Got feedback on the new design? We're Listening! Send us Feedback

Scientists: St. Helens could erupt for a century »

Posted by: Aidenag 1 year, 4 months ago

6.5

Scale of 1 to 10

Read: 51

Propped: 46

Comments: 23

Click Prop It to Raise Score

Prop it

Mount St. Helens may be following the example of Kilauea in Hawaii with magma being replaced from a reservoir beneath the volcano as fast as it emerges as lava at the surface, scientists say.

Read Full Story at komotv.com

Join the Discussion

+ Add Comment

Comments So Far: 23

0%
Wil1 year, 4 months ago

At least there'll be lots of stuff to watch on the VolcanoCam: http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/volcanocams/msh/
Reply
1 Reply
- 100%
  endofdays1 year, 4 months ago
  
  cool link
  static cams rock
  Reply
0%
capecoralM1 year, 4 months ago

Can Wa.state buy Carbon offsets from Al Gores company for Mt. St. Helen CO2 emmissions?
Reply
11 Replies
- 75%
  BrianJJohnson1 year, 4 months ago
  
  ahahaah well said.
  Reply
- 100%
  OnlyTheTruth1 year, 4 months ago
  
  Actually a volcano doesn't put out a whole lot of carbon.
  Reply
  9 Replies
  - 100%
    vettenut1 year, 4 months ago
    
    Actually, you are incorrect. (Unless you mean pure carbon, which is very rare in nature. And "carbon credits" are typically meant to address all forms of organic or carbon-containing materials used or emitted.)
    The truth is that volcanoes emit HUGE amounts of carbon dioxide.
    According to the USGS (the US Geological Survey), which is the Governmental agency most closely focused upon observing and analyzing volcanic activity, carbon dioxide is typically the second most abundant volcanic gas:
    "The concentrations of different volcanic gases can vary considerably from one volcano to the next. Water vapor is typically the most abundant volcanic gas, followed by carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide."
    --usgs.gov...
    This is an inconvenient truth for the anthropogenic Glow Bull Worming crowd and for people like AlGore, who are NOT anywhere near climatological experts!
    
    Reply
    8 Replies
    - 0%
      vettenut1 year, 4 months ago
      
      The fact that humans cause the emission of only about 4-5% of the CO2 released annually (current best guess, the actual amount is not accurately quantifiable) is lost on these alarmists. The release of about 95% of the annual CO2 from other-than-human sources does them no political good.
      So they exaggerate the effects of the 4-5%and ignore the 95% that cannot be controlled, nor is it caused in any way by human activity.
      These facts hopefully provide a perspective for those who actually seek a fact-based approach to understanding climate change.
      Others who have a drum to beat for various reasons will trumpet their alarmist blather from any rooftop or discussion thread they can access!!!!
      Oh, in case anyone wants to know, I drive a very fuel efficient car, heat my house almost totally with renewable energy sources, and take care of my things so they last for a long time.......
      You don't have to be a lefty alarmist to be "green!"
      
      Reply
      2 Replies
      - 0%
        WCFIELDS1 year, 4 months ago
        
        A Flatulent earth.
        Reply
      - 0%
        tadowe1 year, 4 months ago
        
        It is interesting to note that Greenpeace has these facts: http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/science/r... . . . While nature produces about 30 times more CO2 than human activity. . .
        Wow! Man's CO2 amounts to .03 percent!
        Animal expiration, forest fires, ocean/land reduction of solids release, volcanic activity. So, how can .03 percent be the cause of GW? By not being 'natural?'
        No, and since CO2 levels have been historically higher, although temperatures were equal to an "Ice Age." Conversly, temps have been higher historically, even though the CO2 levels were lower than now.
        On top of that, the hysterics won't recognize that methane is 20 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2! The UN indicates methane as the main cause of GW. Perhaps wiping out any number of African herd species would assist nature to avoid GW? Wildebeasts? Antelopes?
        No, just silly to think mankind can stop GW, unless you have a Grey Lensman in your pocket.
        Reply
    - 0%
      vettenut1 year, 4 months ago
      
      Edinbug:
      FIRST, your personal, name-calling comments about me in response to impersonal comments I made about Glow Bull Worming alarmists in general fly in the face of your allegation made below ("They spew an un-Godly amount of seething hatred for those who carry the message of Global Warming.") Actually, the personalization of your comments, and the strength of words you used show that YOU are guilty of doing the very thing to your adversaries that you accuse OTHERS of doing to theirs!
      SECONDLY, you certainly DO NOT know me if you call me a "science phobic."
      THIRDLY, your reply comments are completely misdirected, since you compare anthropogenic CO2 emissions to volcanic CO2 emissions (which I did not do).
      
      My comments compare anthropogenic CO2 to TOTAL "naturally-sourced" CO2, not to volcanic-sourced CO2.
      There is a slight difference!!!!
      And, NO, I will not engage in name-calling with you--
      I do not stoop to that level!
      Reply
      2 Replies
      - 0%
        vettenut1 year, 4 months ago
        
        Edinbug:
        And further, I demonize no one--I respond to their message, not to them personally. I strive for content in my postings.
        You, on the other hand, will have to answer for yourself whether or not you do........
        No truly scientific data "rattles my world." What does not make sense to me is the currently-popular self-glorification of humans and the obvious exaggerations of their ability to voluntarily alter the natural (and largely "not understood") complex cycles which are actually of a global and indeed, super-terrestrial nature!
        Finally, NO, you obviously do not have a clue "from whence I come!!!" For you to presume so is quite revealing.
        Reply
        1 Reply
        
        0%
        joeeddie1 year, 4 months ago
        
        Maybe you can help me understand something. I am familiar with the differences in the types of CO2 that you mention and am curious if you can explain to me the differences in emissions from volcanoes. The 200 million ton figure of volcanic emissions per year is a very misleading number as I understand it. I researched one volcano in Hawaii (Kilauea) that was measured to produce over 25 million tons of CO2 emissions in one year. Is it possible for this one "non-catastrophic erupting" active volcano to produce 1/8 of the worlds total of volcanic emissions? And is it correct to say that in terms of a catastrophic eruption (like Vesuvius), the levels of emissions would be off the charts compared to this 200 million ton figure?
        Reply
    - 0%
      Aidenag1 year, 4 months ago
      
      @Vettenut..
      I dont know what your talking about, but the USGS that you speak of... states very cleary, that MAN has for many years been producing MORE CO2 than volcano's do..
      http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/v...
      The Deniers stating otherwise, are just spouting non scientificly backed propoganda. In hopes of confusing people to a point they question even things that are proven to be true...
      
      Reply
      1 Reply
      - 10%
        vettenut1 year, 4 months ago
        
        Aidenag:
        Your comments are entirely mis-directed--you compare anthropogenic CO2 emissions to volcanic CO2 emissions, which I DID NOT DO.
        I commented upon anthropogenic CO2 to TOTAL "natural" CO2 emissions.
        As you probably know, there is a slight difference........
        BTW, are humans "natural" or "non-natural???"
        Reply
86%
THOMNH621 year, 4 months ago

oh no, what is Al Gore going to do to prevent the massive explosion and emmision of tons of ash into the atmoshere. Maybe he could lean over and plug the crator with his huge gut, or maybe Tipper could help by lending him her huge ass. I bet if we put his gut, her ass, and Hillary's head in the hole we would be safe forever.
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  vettenut1 year, 4 months ago
  
  Edinbug:
  After reading your post, I have sadly determined that I forgot to include in my comments above an obligatory reference to either of the Clinton's.
  So, to correct that grievous wrongdoing, here is that obligatory comment:
  ______________________
  There, now I trust my comments meet your expectations!
  If not, please do NOT conclude that I'm giving you the finger...........
  Reply
100%
stephenmv1 year, 4 months ago

God never told Pat Robertson that this is going to happen, so I doubt it will.
Reply
0%
droid39131 year, 4 months ago

Oh no!!! Call Al Gore to stop this!!! Maybe he can cover the crator with his big mouth!
My sister is a scientist with a phd. She's seen him while in college. She says he's an idoit. And it's to bad that the general public are under educated in the sciences and other subjects. They would know better to listen to him.
Reply
0%
nottinghills1 year, 4 months ago

For a year? Please. News agencies must pick the most ridiculous scientists to support strange and wacky headlines.
Reply
1 Reply
- 0%
  nottinghills1 year, 4 months ago
  
  Allow me to correct myself: I meant century. I don't know a century seems like a long time??
  Reply
0%
WCFIELDS1 year, 4 months ago

T.V. News tonight (Tuesday) mentioned that a hiway to Mt. St. Helens has been closed due to a slide. Apparently there is no plan to open it again soon.
I don't know if this is connected to volcanic activity or not.
Reply
17%
shyanbelle1 year, 4 months ago

I haven't read the comments so I am not sure if some one touched on this already. But when they say "erupt for a century" do they mean a massive eruption that could effect the entire worlds people by spewing that much ash in to the atmosphere. Or do they mean gradually let out lava over a century?
I haven't really had time to look in to this that much although I did see it and read it today on Yahoo's front page. Pretty interesting. I just never seen where they explained exactly what they meant by "eruption". I guess I have watched one to many "dangerous volcano" documentaries on the discovery channel...lol
Reply
0%
Conscernedguy1 year ago

Ok So according to what I have found. Around about 1 Billion tons a year of CO2 Gasses are Natural causes. But current numbers have stated the 32.5 Billion tons per year are from humans. Which 25% comes from the USA. That is around 8.1 Billion tons Per Year. Ummmm thats not good. Show how much exactly comes from volcano's- the numbers may be off, but not by much. Sorry about that
Reply

Next 25 comments

Submitted By:

Aidenag

Photographer by day, news junkie by night. My main areas of interest are politics and the environment. If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions ...

Also submitted:

Why not submit a story?