VOLCANIC EMISSIONS IGNORED BY GLOBALIST'S WARMING CAMP

[qam1]

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts.

I would challenge that, not the land part but the submarine volcanoes, there's just no way land and ocean volcanoes put out equal amounts of CO2. The ocean volcanoes put out a lot more.

That study was done 15 years ago in 1992 (See the footnotes, there was no actual study in 1999), since then we discovered a hell of a lot more volcanic activity going on beneath the oceans, especially in the last couple of years.

For some recent examples see http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm

2 notable ones

Hydrothermal "Megaplume" Found in Indian Ocean

An enormous hydrothermal "megaplume" found in the Indian Ocean serves as a dramatic reminder that underwater volcanoes likely play an important role in shaping Earth's ocean systems, scientists report. The plume, which stretches some 43.5 miles (70 kilometers) long, appears to be active on a previously unseen scale. "In a nutshell, this thing is at least 10 times—or possibly 20 times—bigger than anything of its kind that's been seen before,"

And

The Fiery Face of the Arctic Deep

The Gakkel ridge is a gigantic volcanic mountain chain stretching beneath the Arctic Ocean. With its deep valleys 5,500 meter beneath the sea surface and its 5,000 meter high summits, Gakkel ridge is far mightier than the Alps..........one of the strongest hydrothermal activities ever seen at mid-ocean ridges were found.

And of course there's always the mid-Atlantic ridge which I would bet puts out many times more by itself than all the land based volcanoes combined.  

With all these new discoveries of underwater volcanoes it's not hard to picture that 20x or 150x man made vs volcanic gap being closed if not exceeded. As of now, nobody can say either way so I wouldn't conceded this argument to the Liberals just yet.

[Senormechanico]

I noticed the last update for that webpage was 5/2001.

[onedoug]

With 5 billion people and billions of other mamalian and other species which ALL exhale CO2, in line with volcanoes, it seems Al Gore and his elves have a lot of shutting-up to do.

[Cold Heart]

I sailed on a ship that was heavily ashed upon by Pinatubo.
(although not while I was aboard)
I was told it was a real mess cleaning the 1 to 2 feet deep ash off the decks. 100 psi 2-1/2 inch fire hoses just made the stuff act like wet cement.

I passed a sample of the ash on to Oregon State University.

[ApplegateRanch]

That's why, in the winter, I keep a kettle of water on the wood stove, and vent the smoke up the chimney.

The steam keeps the house much more comfortable than the CO^2 from the fire would. ;)

[MiltonFriedmanFan]

Didnt Mt St Helens erupting cool the global temperature by a full degree?

[ApplegateRanch]

Darned it I know.

[pepsionice]

There was a special clause written into Kyoto...which I found interesting. If you know this all real...and you had technology on your side...you could develop trees that could switch C02 at double the speed...as I've been told. Apparently....the Kyoto guys wrote up an agreement that this was a "foul" and would not lessen your negative numbers one single bit. I sat there...and thought...if I was sinking in a river and someone threw me any kind of life vest...I wouldn't care what kind it was. Apparently...they do.

[justa-hairyape]

Not all volcanic eruptions are alike. Here is a quote from the link below (quick clusty search). Interesting that some smaller eruptions can actually cause more cooling then larger eruptions. BTW - Mt. St. Helens apparently lowered global by 0.1 degrees C.

Although the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens lowered global temperatures by 0.1 OC, the much smaller eruption of El Chichon lowered global temperatures three to five times as much. Although the Mt. St. Helens blast emitted a greater amount of ash in the stratosphere, the El Chichon eruption emitted a much greater volume of sulfur-rich gases (40x more).

Clearly there are no rules that can be applied to all volcanoes. Except for maybe that they are all hot. What I always find amusing is that everyone ignores the obvious HEAT emitted by these objects. What about the HEAT from the volcano or the HEAT from automobiles. One would think they are important metrics themselves. Guess who was the first to propose the theory that cooling can result from the eruptions of volcanic eruptions ? He was one of those 'evil' founders of our Republic.

SDSU Web Page (no cites sorry)

[justa-hairyape]

Apparently...they do.

It is growth and population control, pure and simple. Wait till we all have to wear our individual excess carbon producing numbers on our foreheads.

[palmer]

My post 18 (7.1Gt) comes from this source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg97rpt/chap1.html Post 12 quotes total carbon which is apparantly 3x greater. My post only referenced one volcano (Pinatubo 1991) but post 12 has yearly totals.

[steelyourfaith]

PING

[palmer]

I was pointing out that man's 7100 is much more important than a big volcano (pinatubo 1991) at 42. But all natural sources esp. oceans and biosphere are much bigger at 150,000.

[uscabjd]

I think you're right. Its a reason the Aussies didn't sign. Also, I read one version that didn't grant credits for carbon decrease due to new muclear plants.

[SampleMan]

I was pointing out that man's 7100 is much more important than a big volcano (pinatubo 1991) at 42. But all natural sources esp. oceans and biosphere are much bigger at 150,000.

Understood. I was conjecturing that the natural output is not likely 150,000Mt every year, but that is an average, AND that the natural deviation is likely much larger than 42Mt. This would be important if for instance the natural average from 1700-1800 were 150,100Mt (more than current natural plus man).

Do you have a good online source of this information, from which I could research this?

[Screamname]

Plus last time I checked all these other planets that have massive amounts of C02 in the atmosphere don`t have any plant life.

Plants suck up CO2 and spit out O2....It`s a perfect balance that has been going on for billions of years on earth when the earth with going through a lot worse than a bunch of Chevys driving around..It has allowed the earth to remain oxegen rich through volcanoes, earthquakes, cataclysmic meteor strikes that blotted out the sky a billion times worse than any cars can do.

Even when plant life was brought to a bare minimum, even that wasn`t enough to stop the earth turning into a planet like Venus, which turned into a greenhouse planet from its liquid water evaporating by the way...Before that Venus had an atmosphere much similar to earth, but no life.

This whole global warming crap is ridiculous, it`s like saying plants are spitting out too much O2 (and there are a hell of a lot more plants than cars, people and animals) so we should cut down trees. The only result of more CO2 is more O2. When plants get down to practically nothing, then we should worry, but so far I haven`t seen any trees on strike.

Oh my, look at these poor plants getting stuffed on too much CO2...

[John Fitzgerald]

Strategerist> ...Emissions of CO2 by human activities,
including fossil fuel burning, cement production,
and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes
per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al.,
1998) - The reference gives the amount of released
carbon (C), rather than CO2.].

Released CARBON, not co2. Much of the carbon falls out of the atmosphere (via rain) and is also absorbed by the oceans, which btw cover about 3/4 of the earth’s surface. Sand in the earth’s many vast deserts also absorb carbon
and co2.

Still in all, I’m waiting for ‘AlGore’ and his power grabers in the U.N. to explain how they differentiate between natural and man made co2 producation. And again, if co2 is heavier than oxygen and nitrogen, how does it reamin abouve us to act as a ‘greenhouse gas’??

btw... so2 indeed reflects sunlight, but it also traps heat....much of which is produced by vlocanic activity, above and below the earth.

The earth is a gigantic ball of ‘lava’...with a thin crust. Do you think its just possible that the earth can produce any heat of its own?? Do you really think this emission of heat is constant from century to century? More than a dozen ice-ages that have come and gone on their own say.. ‘NO’.

[frdalesmith]

This article from scientists at the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory states that volcanoes emit less than 1% as much CO2 as humans. In 2003, volcanic emissions of CO2 were approximately 200 million tons. Human emissions were 26.8 BILLION tons.
Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?

[frdalesmith]

"Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years. In recent centuries, however, CO2 levels have risen sharply, to at least 380 ppm. So what's going on? It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon 'sinks'."

Apparently, there are natural carbon sinks that absorb the CO2 released by natural emissions. When the small amount of human emissions of CO2 are added to the mix, it overwhelms the natural carbon sinks. This could be why CO2 levels have gone from a natural 180 to 300 parts per million to 380ppm and rising today.

Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter

[frdalesmith]

The atomic weights of carbon, nitrogen and oxygen are as follows:
C = 12.0110369
N = 14.0067231
O = 15.9993047

Nitrogen and oxygen occur as N2 and O2 in nature. So, the atomic weight of N2 is 28.0134462 (14.0067231 per atom). O2 is 31.9986094 (15.9993047 per atom). And CO2 is 44.0096463 (14.6698821 per atom). CO2 is heavier than N2 but lighter than O2.