The Guardian: CO2 Apocalypse Now! Volcanoes, earthquakes, awaken subterranean giants

JoNova ^ | February 29th, 2012 | | Joanne

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

The Guardian “Climate change will shake the Earth” (parroted by the SMH) is feeding the pagan masses who worship The God CO2. Which would be fine, except they pretend that it’s science when it’s the “hell” part of any religion. If you drive your SUV too far you, sinner, will bear the blame for earthquakes, volcanoes, and landslides. The mystery, we wonder, is why they forgot pestilence and plagues?!

Try this on. I’m quoting them: “So what – geologically speaking – can we look forward to if we continue to pump out greenhouse gases at the current hell-for-leather rate?”

• “we could almost certainly say an eventual goodbye to the Greenland ice sheet, and probably that covering West Antarctica too”
• “a 10-metre or more rise in sea levels.”

• ”these could trigger submarine landslides spawning tsunamis capable of threatening North Atlantic coastlines.”
• [More]” landslide activity would be inevitable in the Andes, Himalayas, European Alps…”
• “acting to squeeze magma out of susceptible volcanoes that are primed and ready to blow.“

Oh, Lordy. And what major study are these dire pronouncements made on? Why, someone called Bill McGuire has noticed a lot more volcanoes lately. That’s it.

He seems to have trouble keeping things in perspective.

The bottom line is that through our climate-changing activities we are loading the dice in favour of escalating geological havoc at a time when we can most do without it.

Sure, there has never been a worse time to deal with disasters: all those neolithic cave dwellers, and preindustrial people coped so much better with volcanoes and earthquakes than we do now.

Unless there is a dramatic and completely unexpected turnaround in the way in which the human race manages itself and the planet, then long-term prospects for our civilization look increasingly grim.

Grim? Here’s “Grim”

Among other things, Bill-the-vulcanologist seems to have overlooked the worst volcano in Human history, namely Toba, a supersized supervolcano of a magnitude 8 (and there is no “9″ in that scale). It was so big it blew up in Indonesia and left 3-6 metre (10-20 foot) deep ash as far away as India. For all that Mount Pinatubo was a decent volcano, Toba blew off 200 times as much. In what was truly a global disaster of civilizational proportions, genetic studies on homo sapiens show a bottleneck in our gene pool at about the same time. It’s theorized that we were almost wiped off the planet – almost extincto-humanoidia.

Awkwardly Toba popped it’s top in about 70,000 BC. This is despite the likelihood that things were probably 5 degrees colder than it is now, it being an ice age and all. And this is after Toba-the-sleeping-giant sat quietly through the Eemian warm phase when the world was around 2 – 4 degrees warmer than the present (circa 130,000 BC) which surely would have triggered all those “primed and ready to blow” volcanoes. The dormant super volcano missed all those Eemian sea level rises and melting icecaps and exploded when the world (or at least Antarctica) was colder. Hey, but a lot can change in 50,000 cooling years. (Maybe it would have been a bigger explosion if humans had invented coal powered turbines 100 years beforehand? Who knows?)

Another magnitude 8 volcano blew up in 26,ooo (Lake Taupo’s Oruanui eruption) another not-so-warm period deep in an ice age. The largest volcano in modern times was Mount Tambora, an impressive magnitude 7. In the context of warming and CO2 emissions, though, the 1816 inferno date is just another data point that doesn’t fit the theory. It’s only a sample size of 3 (see below for more) but if we are talking of civilizational threats, you’d think these rated a mention.

The current batch of magnitude 4′s in this the warmest supposed decade “ever” are not the stuff of global apocalypse.

The Smithsonian don’t think volcanoes are on the rise with CO2 either

They argue any increase is due to an increase in reporting. Previously, small remote volcanoes went un-noted. Plus reports of volcanoes rise after news coverage of a larger volcano and fall during other distractions, like during World Wars.

Spot the ugly rising trend in volcanoes with increased emissions:

Finally, we plot (above) the record since reasonably comprehensive reporting of global volcanism began in the 1960s. Note that the number of confirmed erupting volcanoes has leveled off between 50 and 70 per year through the past four decades, and a linear regression line through the data indicates that volcanism has been virtually constant

So much for that theory.

If you want an apocalypse, search for an ice-age.

Bill McGuire is professor of geophysical and climate hazards at University College London. Waking the Giant: How a Changing Climate Triggers Earthquakes, Tsunamis and Volcanoes is published by Oxford University Press.

UPDATE: “Bob-the-vulcanologist” has a nice ring, but that should read Bill, so I’ve fixed it. And yes, Eocene should read Eemian. Corrected. Apologies. Thanks to readers Peter Miller and Mac for the proof reading! — Jo

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Some one out there must believe this stuff....anyone?

[Sacajaweau]

Imagine what those Tsunamis have put into the atmosphere...I’m sure it’s enough to change the balance temporarily. I’m inclined to believe that the sea rise is a protection against the settling of gases on the earth itslef...kinda like a biiiiig swab.

[The Great RJ]

This lunacy reminds me of of the story in Volaire's Candide where the Grand Inquisitor of Lisbon maintained that the great earthquake of 1715 was caused by the Inquisition not burning enough heretics.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the other side of this debate:

The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future by Senator James Inhofe (Hardcover - Feb 28, 2012)

[mountainlion]

This guy has it backward. Volcanoes cause green house gases not the other way around. Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines released more green house gases than the Industrial Revolution.

[SaraJohnson]

I have been noticing Obama is blowing up dams around the heartland to re-wild the environment. Latest one in Washington State - a reservoir. I wonder how much that is happening and how it will the supply of drinking water. The water melons often say that the next "crisis" will be drinking water shortages. Wonder if they are in the process of creating that.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

And from WUWT:

Cambridge professor Michael Kelly on “deniers” and climate change: “science has been consistently over-egged to produce alarm.”

[steelyourfaith]

Thanx for the ping Ernest_at_the_Beach !

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Marine_Uncle]

I know people who I had worked with for a few years, mostly young ones, who actually believe all the BS that has come down the road regarding AGW, CO2, etc.. They actually think there is a world consensus of all knowing scientist as has been preached to them.

[smokingfrog]

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Tacking this on here....from mention of Bishop Hill:

Nordhaus and the sixteen

********************************************

Economist William Nordhaus takes a pop at the sixteen concerned scientists, in the latest skirmish kicked off by their Wall Street Journal editorial.

My response is primarily designed to correct their misleading description of my own research; but it also is directed more broadly at their attempt to discredit scientists and scientific research on climate change.¹ I have identified six key issues that are raised in the article, and I provide commentary about their substance and accuracy. They are:

• Is the planet in fact warming?
• Are human influences an important contributor to warming?
• Is carbon dioxide a pollutant?
• Are we seeing a regime of fear for skeptical climate scientists?
• Are the views of mainstream climate scientists driven primarily by the desire for financial gain?
• Is it true that more carbon dioxide and additional warming will be beneficial?

<script src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" type="text/javascript"/> </span> </div> <div class="journal-entry-tag-post-body-line3"><span class="post-comments">

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

LOL!

[stuck_in_new_orleans]

It’s almost like these people are hoping for a disaster so they can blame “rich” people

[Carry_Okie]

The water melons often say that the next "crisis" will be drinking water shortages. Wonder if they are in the process of creating that.

That and making sure there is less competition for the petrochemical energy industry. There is a horde of water treatment companies out there seeking a shortage with which to pitch everything from desalinization to water recycling both of which consume gobs of energy.

Same game, same players.

[BenLurkin]

a bottleneck in our gene pool

That would explain "Lady Gaga".

[ApplegateRanch]

3. The sixteen scientists next attack the idea of CO2 as a pollutant. They write: “The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant.” By this they presumably mean that CO2 is not by itself toxic to humans or other organisms within the range of concentrations that we are likely to encounter, and indeed higher CO2 concentrations may be beneficial. However, this is not the meaning of pollution under US law or in standard economics. The US Clean Air Act defined an air pollutant as “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive…substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.” In a 2007 decision on this question, the Supreme Court ruled clearly on the question: “Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt ‘physical [and] chemical…substance[s] which [are] emitted into…the ambient air.’ …Greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of ‘air pollutant.’”6

In economics, a pollutant is a form of negative externality—that is, a byproduct of economic activity that causes damages to innocent bystanders. The question here is whether emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will cause net damages, now and in the future. This question has been studied extensively. The most recent thorough survey by the leading scholar in this field, Richard Tol, finds a wide range of damages, particularly if warming is greater than 2 degrees Centigrade.7 Major areas of concern are sea-level rise, more intense hurricanes, losses of species and ecosystems, acidification of the oceans, as well as threats to the natural and cultural heritage of the planet.

In short, the contention that CO2 is not a pollutant is a rhetorical device and is not supported by US law or by economic theory or studies.

His (and the underlying) logic reminds me of that old Country standard: The Circle Shall Not Be Broken.

---

I was singing with my sisters
I was singing with my friends
And we all can, sing together
Cause the circle never ends