The Hunga Tonga undersea volcanic eruption was the largest on earth over the last 30 years, according to Research Physical Scientist Brian Brettschneider with the National Weather Service Alaska region.

Brettschneider said that the ash created by the eruption will likely cause a slight cooling effect on the climate, though not as dramatic as short-term climate changes from past volcanic eruptions. In 1815, the climate impacts caused by the Mount Tambora volcanic eruption caused what was called “the year without a summer.”

“What we’re seeing so far is a fairly minor amount of climate altering stratospheric sulfur particles have been detected so far,” Brettschneider said. “A pretty small amount relative to the size of the eruption, so kind of our first initial best guess is that there is going to be a pretty minor climate impact over the next few years.”

Of course, that can only account for the estimates of the blast so far, not any future eruptions that may or may not happen.
Estimates say the Hunga Tonga eruption was equivalent to 2% of the pressure released in the Krakatoa eruption for comparison.

Carefully

None of the endothermic reactions in this video have been suggested as methods to regulate global temperature, because even if they could be scaled up enough to make a global difference they don't address the systems which regulate the earth's temperature.

Some things which have affected global temperatures either up or down are:

• Volcanic eruptions can cause global cooling, for example the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption released around 20 million tons of sulphur dioxide causing global cooling of approx 0.5°C over the following three years (ref: https://earthdata.nasa.gov/learn/sensing-our-planet/volcanoes-and-climate-change and https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs113-97/ )
  
• Increased rates of erosion of the right type of rocks can increase CO₂ absorption and reduce global temperatures that way, https://earth.stanford.edu/news/how-weathering-rocks-cooled-earth#gs.cmy3h0
  
• Cyanobacteria, https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/evolutionary-accident-probably-caused-worst-snowball-earth-episode-study-shows-1026
  

Most of this cone and island is now gone after a Dec 22 collapse and tsunami. The main volcanic vent is now underwater.

https://img.volcanodiscovery.com/uploads/pics/anak-krakatau30dec18.jpg

You might be disappointed, I'm pretty sure that this is the video where he gives the explanation, which is fault line geothermal heating. In the TED talk he says that it's a really unusual type of geothermal heating that's not found anywhere else. Most hot springs are volcanic, but not here.

Here is an article which shows the various fault lines in and around Peru, including one close to Pucallpa - http://temblor.net/earthquake-insights/ecuador-peru-and-colombia-faults-hint-where-large-earthquakes-could-strike-2128/

Well, that's one step in the right direction that you now admit the undeniable fact that global temperatures are rising....finally.
Interesting, then what is your theory, seeing as natural cycles would have our temperatures falling right now, but since the industrial revolution they've been trending higher. You can't blame volcanos, there've been no massive volcanic releases to cause it, only minor ones that barely register.

Yes, true, the Paris accord is too little too late, that's not somehow condemnation of the idea that global climate change is man made. Only one nation even questions that, and really only <1/3 of that nation.
Did you ever watch An Inconvenient Truth....I don't think so, because it said no such thing, I think you're repeating what a talking head told you it said. He did say we would probably see obvious effects by now...and we do. He did not say we would all be dead, not even in 100 years.

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, are not still here, they are dead of famine and wars caused by, and causing, migrating populations. Most of East Africa is in severe drought as bad or worse than Ethiopia in the 80's, just like Gore warned would be increasingly more likely due to climate change, and India and Asia are threatened with losing their main sources of water because of accelerated glacial melting.

But Rotorua also had all the volcanic parks. They were awesome, geysers galore!
Queenstown was the epicenter of excitement when I went in 88. We bungied there, rafted and jetboated the Shotover river, flew to a glacier (Cook?), and hiked the Milford track starting and ending there. Good times....thanks dad.

-Massive Waves
-Global earthquakes
-Frequent Volcanic Eruptions

How is Mars worse than this? And it sounds like a lot of the tech used for Mars could help if this ever happened to Earth. How is that a bad thing?

"It does us a power of good to remind ourselves that we live on two volcanic rocks where two tectonic plates meet, in a somewhat lonely stretch of windswept ocean just above the Roaring Forties. If you want drama - you've come to the right place."

Memory attributed that to David Lange like most kiwi quotes, but apparently it was Geoffrey Palmer.

Your video, Time Lapse of Chilean Volcanic Eruption, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 4 Badge!

Your video, Volcanic lightning during massive eruption, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I could say with the Hawaii case that it may not be what you think it is, at first. First, find out if you are on or near one of the very active volcanic regions in Hawaii. Then find out where the last couple of (and possibly even lava flows going back decades--as you never know what they plan to do with some of those roads) lava flow where.

If any of them came close to the road you were on, you have your answer. The road MAY have used to look far different in the past--possibly being four lanes, or even shifted 15-20 feet in another direction, etc... Then the lava came, covered some of the road here and there (after some time plants grow on it, as it is very fertile, and you have no idea you are driving right through a gigantic lava field/flow).

They may come back and put some asphalt down to allow residents and others to still get to various places on the island--but, they may not redo the lines and other things because the risk of the lava field increasing and further burying the road is fairly high. So they just leave the road as is, essentially a make-shift emergency road possibly not created for a long-term outlook.

But, that is just one guess. As for the video above...Narcolepsy? I have no idea what happened there (or why it would stay that way, unless the road is in an area like what I described and it is more of a "make-shift" road...as you DO see the road break up and start to disappear at the end, so it is possible).

@dannym3141, I understand that you are "stepping out of the debate," but, for your edification, I'll respond here... And, for the record, I am not "funded" by Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Solar, or Big Green. Nor am I a professor of climate or environmental science at a State University (and don't have a political agenda around this issue other than to help promote sound reasoning and critical thinking). I do, however, hold a doctorate and can read the scientific literature critically. So, in response to what climate change "believers" say, it's worth noting that no one is actually taking the temperature of the seas. They simply see sea levels rising and say "global warming," but how do they know? It's a model they came up with. But far from certain, just a theory. Like Antarctica melting, but then someone finds out that it's due to volcanic activity underneath, and so on.

And also, why is the heat then staying in the water and not going into the atmosphere? So, they then have to come up with a theory on top of the other theory... So the heat is supposedly being stored deep below where the sensors cannot detect it. Great. And this is happening because...some other theory or another that can't be proven either. And then they have to somehow come up with a theory as to how they know that the deep sea warming is due to human activity and not to other causes. I'm not denying that any of this happens, just expressing skepticism, meaning that no one really knows for sure. That folks would "bet the house on it" does not serve as any proof, at all.

The discussion on the sift pivots from "global warming" to vilifying skeptics, not about the original skepticism discussed, that there is catastrophic man-caused global warming going on. Three issues yet to be proven beyond skepticism: 1) that there is global warming; 2) that it is caused by human activity; 3) that it's a big problem.

When I ask about one, they dance around to another one of these points, rather than responding. And all they have in response to the research is the IPCC "report" on which all their science is based. And most if not all published "believers" say that the heat "may be hiding" in the deep ocean, not that they "certainly know it is" like they seem to claim.

They don't have knowledge that the scientists who are actively working on this do not have, do they? It's like the IRS saying, "My computer crashed." The IPCC says, "The ocean ate my global warming!"

Here are some links worth reading:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274

And, from a different rebuttal: "Referring to the 17 year ‘pause,’ the IPCC allows for two possibilities: that the sensitivity of the climate to increasing greenhouse gases is less than models project and that the heat added by increasing CO2 is ‘hiding’ in the deep ocean. Both possibilities contradict alarming claims."

Here's the entire piece from emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, Dr. Richard Lindzen: http://www.thegwpf.org/richard-lindzen-understanding-ipcc-climate-assessment/

And take your pick from all of the short pieces listed here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/08/is-gores-missing-heat-really-hiding-in-the-deep-ocean/

And http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/ipcc-in-denial-just-so-excuses-use-mystery-ocean-heat-to-hide-their-failure/

"Just where the heat is and how much there is seems to depend on who is doing the modeling. The U.S. National Oceanographic Data Center ARGO data shows a slight rise in global ocean heat content, while the British Met Office, presumably using the same data shows a slight decline in global ocean heat content."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/10/03/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming-part-2/#sthash.idQttama.dpuf

Dr. Lindzen had this to say about the IPCC report: "I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/10/01/the-ocean-ate-my-global-warming-part-1/#sthash.oMO3oy6X.dpuf

So just as "believers" can ask "Why believe Heartland [financier for much of the NPCC], but not the IPCC," I can just as easily ask "Why should I believe you and not Richard Lindzen?"

"CCR-II cites more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers to show that the IPCC has ignored or misinterpreted much of the research that challenges the need for carbon dioxide controls."

And from the same author's series:

"Human carbon dioxide emissions are 3% to 5% of total carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, and about 98% of all carbon dioxide emissions are reabsorbed through the carbon cycle.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf

"Using data from the Department of Energy and the IPCC we can calculate the impact of our carbon dioxide emissions. The results of that calculation shows that if we stopped all U.S. emissions it could theoretically prevent a temperature rise of 0.003 C per year. If every country totally stopped human emissions, we might forestall 0.01 C of warming."

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2013/08/01/climate-change-in-perspective/#sthash.Dboz3dC5.dpuf

Again, I have asked, repeatedly, where's the evidence of human impact on global warming? "Consensus" is not evidence. I ask for evidence and instead I get statements about the consensus that global warming happening. These are two different issues.

"Although Earth’s atmosphere does have a “greenhouse effect” and carbon dioxide does have a limited hypothetical capacity to warm the atmosphere, there is no physical evidence showing that human carbon dioxide emissions actually produce any significant warming."

Or Roger Pielke, Sr: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/pielke-sr-on-that-hide-and-seek-ocean-heat/

Or Lennart Bengtsoon (good interview): "Yes, the scientific report does this but, at least in my view, not critically enough. It does not bring up the large difference between observational results and model simulations. I have full respect for the scientific work behind the IPCC reports but I do not appreciate the need for consensus. It is important, and I will say essential, that society and the political community is also made aware of areas where consensus does not exist. To aim for a simplistic course of action in an area that is as complex and as incompletely understood as the climate system does not make sense at all in my opinion."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/meteorologist-lennart-bengtsson-joins-climate-skeptic-think-tank-a-968856.html

Bengtsson: "I have always been a skeptic and I believe this is what most scientists really are."

What Michael Crichton said about "consensus": "Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

Will Happer on the irrelevancy of more CO2 now: "The earth's climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth's temperature -- on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds."

Ivar Giaever, not a climate scientist per se, but a notable scientist and also a skeptic challenging "consensus": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8786565/War-of-words-over-global-warming-as-Nobel-laureate-resigns-in-protest.html

Even prominent IPCC scientists are skeptics, even within the IPCC there is not agreement: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/

And for your research, it may be worth checking out: http://www.amazon.com/The-Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State/dp/0521010683

I'll try....
In short, yes, slightly they would (and have) accelerated.
This stops sometimes because equilibrium is reached, there's only so much heat being added to 'transfer'. Also, at times it HAS melted the ice caps completely.
Climate change causes ice ages to come and go. There are many reasons for climate change historically, usually tied to the makeup of the atmosphere, which naturally changes in 'cycles' (when not interfered with un-naturally). From my understanding, most have been caused, at least in part, by volcanic activity on a scale never seen in human history. The really scary part to me is, even without these volcanic events, we've raised the CO2 level faster than they seem to have raised due to natural forces in the past. The climate is now playing catch up with the atmosphere.

Because we can look at the type of carbon, and volcanic carbon is heavier than fossil fuel carbon. When measured, the heavier carbon barely makes a dent compared to the fossil fuel carbon.

It's called science. Learn it. Love it.

(We should also note, when lead was a popular anti-knock component of gasoline, a "scientist" who was funded by the gas companies said there was nothing to worry about. Turns out, he was grossly wrong. But he was getting paid to say it wasn't. Much like any junk scientist out there today. Hence why out of peer-reviewed articles, 100% agree that climate change is happening. Only 97% have come to the definitive conclusion it's man-made. Because the scientific method IS being used, this amazingly complex issue is slowly becoming clearer, and there will be ones who will try to find causes others haven't investigated, and if their studies bear out in the peer review cycle, then it's accepted and the theory is altered. Until those 3% come to the table with facts to support their hypothesis, their ideas won't be accepted. Again, it's called science, and this is how it works.)