[removed]

There were simultaneous eruptions of Tavurvur and Vulcan (this is discussed in this Wiki link). Importantly, these (and another volcano) all represent different vents that are part of a single system, so it it definitely analogous to the Mauno Loa and Kilauea example in a sense (though I don't know that much about the detail vent system or structure for the Rabaul Caldera and associated vents). Importantly (and as discussed a bit in the Gonnermann paper I linked in the original answer), there is always the potential that if the influx of melt into a magmatic system is significant enough, you can definitely get simultaneous eruptions in adjacent vents (i.e., the mechanism that potentially drives eruption in one or another vent they present can be overwhelmed if there is just a lot of magma).

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Do you think there is also pressure difference between atmosoheric pressure and ice-glass boundary that plays a part in this?

[removed]

The idea that there are remote areas where even the lower troposphere is sufficiently well mixed enough that sampling in one location represents a reasonable approximation of a global average is the whole concept behind the Mauna Loa Observatory and Keeling Curve.

After your explanation, I’m curious about what might be going on when two nearby volcanoes erupt at the same time. For example, I do fieldwork near Rabaul, Papua New Guinea. Though it’s before my time, I believe the eruption of Tavurvur (which destroyed much of Rabaul at the time) in 1994 (the exact date might be off) also had another eruption of a possibility new volcano nearby (my offhand guess is ~50-100km away).

I know that Tavurvur and the newer volcano are both on the rim of a much, much older caldera, which now makes up Ataliklikun Bay. So I’m wondering then, is it likely that they have the same magma chamber and the release at Tavurvur wasn’t enough to hold the pressure, and a new opening was needed?

To be honest, I may have some small details a bit off about this event. I’m a linguist not a geologist or volcanologist. This is all from what I remember reading and talking to people about. I had always assumed they had the same magma chamber, but I actually know nothing about how it works, and your comment had me wondering. FWIW, Tavurvur (and not the other volcano) has been active on and off again for quite awhile now (though it’s been about 10 years since I was last there, and I’m unsure of the current situation).

TIA

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

The appearance of new genes can be tracked by sequencing of populations and the appearance of the gene in the population. It involves looking at the specific genes and homology to other conserved genes in a population. Often it also involves tracing migration and behavior of humans in the past. Then you often see a correlation with human migration and settlement in a environment where such a mutation is beneficial.

Because (1) potential disasters brings clicks and thus ad revenue and/or (2) Earth Science is a subject that typically takes a back seat to the "big three" STEM fields of biology, chemistry, and physics, so even at the lay level (i.e., whatever science folks get in primary school or college), people tend to be incredibly misinformed or completely unaware of even basic aspects of how the Earth systems works.

To clarify, for either earthquakes or volcanoes, there is effectively no mechanism for triggering either type of event along significant portions of the various plate boundaries rimming the Pacific (i.e., the "Ring of Fire"). There are very specific and limited mechanisms by which earthquakes and volcanoes can trigger each other, especially over large distances, but these are exceedingly rare, require very specific preconditions, and are very hard to demonstrate even if they operate.

Another analogy is convergent evolution. Wherein creatures that look similar, and occupy similar ecological niches may have come from very different forebears.

[removed]

Many of these events (e.g., the Medieval Climate Anomaly or the Roman Warm Period, etc.) are better described as "patchy" as opposed to global. Both the MCA and RWP were the most intense in the northern hemisphere, and specifically in portions of western Europe. This does not mean that there were no effects elsewhere, but these were generally less extreme and the global effects were (1) asynchronous, (2) differed in magnitude, and (3) sometime even differed in sign (i.e., in some places the MCA or RWP represented anomalously cool periods). This is discussed in lay terms moderately well in this Skeptical Science post, but it's a bit dated. There are however more recent papers highlighting the same point (e.g., Neuokm et al., 2019). Thus, in the context of comparing events like the MCA or RWP to modern conditions, they break down pretty quickly because in the modern anthropogenically induced warming, we consistently see rapid warming pretty much everywhere globally and synchronously (and specific to the New Zealand example, follow up work - e.g., Lunning et al., 2019 - has specifically highlighted that while the MCA is recognizable in records through much of Oceania, it's not exactly synchronous, appearing to occur up to several hundred years later in different areas). So, in the form of a direct response, finding that the MCA represented a warm period in 2 places (i.e., western Europe and Oceania) within a broad band of time, does not imply that it's a global event in the same sense as what we are seeing today.

Thank you for your response, but I believe my question was not specific enough. What i am curious about concerns the “history” of genetic mutations. For example, it is believed that humans didn’t develop the “dairy-digesting” genetic mutation until about 6000 years ago. How did they come to that conclusion?

Genuine question: Why is all the popular media always talking about the ring of fire being set off then?

This is one of those things that sounds concerning until you remember it’s been happening for billions of years so clearly it’s not an issue

[removed]

[removed]

That's fair, I'm more familiar with tracking things that have more local sources/sinks (which arguably CO2 has as well at the surface) which is why I noted that while all constituents have local variation it may not be very large in the case of CO2.

I appreciate the clarification though. I should really go look into some of the datasets and see how much surface variation you actually get when not intentionally chasing sources/sinks.

The fog bank example was intended to highlight how distinct different atmospheric "chunks" can be, not necessarily that the CO2 content would change. But again, the clarification is worthwhile here.