
Think again.
The consequences of the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991: Mount Pinatubo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- total mass of SO2 of about 17 million tons being injected
- temperature in the stratosphere rose to several degrees higher than normal
- decrease in northern hemisphere average temperatures of 0.5–0.6 °C
- significant effect on ozone levels in the atmosphere, causing a large increase in the destruction rate of ozone
Here's another link: Mount Pinatubo Eruption
The title says it all: "The Volcanic Mount Pinatubo Eruption of 1991 that Cooled the Planet"
No effects on the climate, eh?
Sorry mate, that's incorrect!
RealClimate: Current volcanic activity and climate?
One point that is also worth making is that although volcanoes release some CO2 into the atmosphere, this is completely negligable compared to anthropogenic emissions (about 0.15 Gt/year of carbon, compared to about 7 Gt/year of human related sources).
But, like Deckingman, I think I'll bail. All of this has been covered to death elsewhere.
Completely different events. Pinatubo was a huge explosive eruption, spewing vast quantities of CO2 and ash into the atmosphere.
The current Icelandic one is puny by comparison; such things are happening there all the time. It comprises molten lava oozing out over an area of a few hectares. Normally, this spreads over the ground, and although small amounts of CO2 and SO2 are emitted, they are totally insignificant and no more than is usual for Iceland. What has made this one so unique is that the lava is emerging under 600 feet of ice. This literally explodes into steam, taking the lava as tiny droplets with it. The droplets immediately solidify into a fine powdered glass, and are carried upwards as smoke with the steam. It is this powdery ash which will strip a jet engine's bearings in seconds.
There is very little CO2 emitted from this kind of eruption. The main products are steam from the ice, and the ash. Despite people's impressions, steam in the form of visible water droplets (cloud) is not a greenhouse gas. Water vapour is, but clouds are not water vapour, although some vapour is added to the atmosphere. So there are two potential climatic implications: greenhouse capture by the extra water vapour, and cooling by reflected sunlight off the clouds. Both effects are tiny and short-lived. They are well within the normal short-term range of events. There might be some minor weather disruption, but no climatic effects at all.
Note that Pinatubo had no climatic effect, either, though it did affect the weather for a time. See also Krakatoa and St Helens. For climatic effects of volcanism, see Deccan Traps.
An article linking the disruption from the volcanic ash to global warming.
Blame the volcano trouble on sun and global warming - environment - 19 April 2010 - New Scientist
An interesting article and we can only monitor the situation to see how accurate these predictions are.
I have a friend stranded on the Portugese coast and he is busting a gut to return to the UK. Nobody believes him and there are far worse places to be stranded than the Portugese coast. Heathrow airport would be one of them.
As I said:
The NS is a bit more definite, but I stand by my 'might'.
That's because volcanos emmit 'good' CO2, whereas human activity emmits 'bad' CO2 which causes global warming, employment for 'climate scientists' and a superb new taxation excuse for politicians.
Eyjafjallajokull is apparently spewing out between 150,000 and 300,000 tonnes of CO2 a day. 'a figure placing it in the same emissions league as a small-to-medium European economy'.
Volcano emitting 150-300,000 tonnes of CO2 daily: experts
Oh noes, what it Gaia doing to itself. 
It's a good job we can rely on the Met Office's wonderfully accurate computer models.
I'm assuming your post is tongue-in-cheek, but just in case it isn't:
Pinatubo spewed out lots of CO2. For a short time. It spewed out lots of ash. For a short time. The ash hung about in the atmosphere for a few months, and had some effects on the weather. The CO2 added to what was there already, of course, but taken in the context of global climates it had no overall effect because it was normal. Such eruptions are commonplace over the years, and merely serve to maintain the CO2 at its climatic stability level.
Similarly with Eyjafjallajokull. To compare it with a human economy is grossly misleading. Firstly, its going to keep going probably for a few weeks; a year or so at most. Compare that with the 100 years of human economies. Secondly, exactly as with Pinatubo, its simply part of the background volcanic emissions which have maintained climatic stability for the past 250,000 years at least.
Perhaps you would now care to explain how the UKs contribution to Global CO2 emissions is seen by the skeptics as totally insignificant (when it comes to the UK cutting back on CO2) yet the short duration and lesser emissions of a volcano in Iceland are noteworthy and show that mother nature is the guilty party?
I don't think either is significant. But then, I'm not a believer.
Yes global warming is a urban myth. check the people behind east Anglia scandal case. all of the "independent" personalities have interests in the area