Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions THE TRUTH.

A recent ATS thread claimed that volcanic activity produces far more co2 than co2 produced by human activities. The OP had no source with scientific data to back any of his outlandish claims, but most people responding in the thread agreed with his sentiments. So in the interests of denying ignorance 'which is the site motto after all' I will provide some evidence to refute these false claims. The truth of the matter is On average, human activities put out in just three to five days the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide that volcanoes produce globally each year.

Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

MANMADE C02 = 80-270 TIMES LARGER THAN THAT OF VOLCANIC CO2 FOR THE YEAR 2010.
Source: short USGS version:volcanoes.usgs.gov...
Source: more thorough pdf:www.agu.org...

Nice work!

S&F

Do you have the original thread where this was said?

reply to post by Atzil321


thankyou!
either way its irrelivant if we cause more tho..we should make room for natural process

There is a reason why they are called deniers. It's not a cheap shot. It's not being mean. Nor is it an attempt to liken them to Holocaust deniers. It's simple. They are called deniers because all they do is deny. They recycle the same garbage that has been debunked over and over and over and over and over. The notion that volcanoes create more CO2 than mankind has been debunked over and over. And yet it still pops up.

This kind of thing has been given a name. Recycled Denial. Thanks for fighting it.

S&F.

reply to post by Atzil321


Thank you for posting this.

I truly get sick of the misrepresentation of science perpetuated by oil and coal companies that spend billions on spreading falsehoods about climate change so they can protect their profits.

They still have people believing, and many on this site, that 'climategate' was something serious when in actuality there was absolutely nothing to it but to the people who are scientifically illiterate and don't understand the language scientist use it was proof of a vast liberal/scientific conspiracy to create a world government and take away everyone's freedom.

First they called it Global cooling..then when it didnt cool they called it global warming..then when it stopped warming they had to call it climate change.. next they are gona call it "Weather Terror".

The seas are not rising.
The earth is not warming.
Polar bears are not dieing...

The only creatures that are becoming extinct it seems are AGW alarmists...

reply to post by auraelium

Thats interesting........
What are your thoughts on (VOLCANIC VERSUS ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 EMISSIONS) Which was what the thread is about?

Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by auraelium

 

Thats interesting........

What are your thoughts on (VOLCANIC VERSUS ANTHROPOGENIC CO2 EMISSIONS) Which was what the thread is about?

Both are irrelevant because Co2 doesnt warm the earth to any great degree.The Elephant in the room for a long time now and AGW doomsayers have been burying their heads in the sand over it for years is that Co2 doesnt cause warming ...but warming causes Co2.

www.drroyspencer.com...

reply to post by auraelium


Im not going to bite mate. If you want to believe in de-bunked crap by Roy W. Spencer, thats your problem

Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by auraelium

 

Im not going to going to bite mate. If you want to believe in de-bunked crap by Roy W. Spencer, thats your problem

Its never been debunked to my knowledge, In fact Alarmists have chosen to completely ignore it as they do with most things that dont fit their hypothisis.If you can link me to where it has i will gladly have a look.its not Roy W. Spencers theory.The theory has been in existance fot years and has been constantly overlooked.

wattsupwiththat.com...

It stems from Ice core data which clearly shows that Co2 levels lag behind warming periods by hundreds of years.

reply to post by auraelium


Im not going to waste my time trying to educate you. Roy W. Spencer has been de-bunked many times. More or less every paper he submits for peer review is rejected or torn to pieces by other scientists. The guy is a creationist, and his scientific method is simplistic and flawed. Try doing some real research into the subject yourself, rather than blindly believing anything that fits your worldview.

Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by auraelium

 

Im not going to waste my time trying to educate you. Roy W. Spencer has been de-bunked many times. More or less every paper he submits for peer review is rejected or torn to pieces by other scientists. The guy is a creationist crackpot, and his scientific method is simplistic and flawed. Try doing some real research into the subject yourself, rather than blindly believing anything that fits your worldview.

The hypothesis is not from him, maby you cant read.Its from Russian vostok ice core data. Its also been peer reviewed and its authenticity it not in dispute and never has been,which is why AGW chooses to ignore it.

Like they choose to ignore data that clearly shows polar bear numbers are rising not falling, from polar bear experts.
mnfmi.org...

Or when they choose to ignore the fact that sea levels are not rising, even from the most prominent scientist in that field of study.

www.climatechangefacts.info...

Or when they choose to ignore NASA satellite data that show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models predict.

news.yahoo.com...

Or when they choose to ignore Cern cloud project data which surprisingly shows that most of our warning comes from the sun,imagine that..

www.realclimate.org...

Or when the choose to ignore the medevil warm period when temperatures were 2 degrees hotter that they are today.

Or when they chose to ignore the Roman warm period when temperatures were 3 degrees hotter than they are today.

Or when they choose to ignore the Ordovician cold period when Co2 levels were 10 times higher than they are today and the earth was actually cooler.

www.skepticalscience.com...

reply to post by auraelium


If you go back and read my OP you will see that I do not mention global warming once. The point of the thread was to simply offer sound evidence to refute claims in another thread about manmade co2 versus volcanic co2. I suggest you go make a new thread about AGW versus natural climate change, if you want to talk about that.

Interesting thread, thanks OP.

I have a question that I made to many scientists, professors and metereologists, whose answers did not really satisfy me. Maybe it's a bit OT, but I still do not understand how variations of CO2 can influence so greatly the climate. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 0,039%; wiki
now, an increase of even 30% of CO2 would bring its level to 0,039+0,011=0,050;
(This would imply also that some other gases should decrease, but let's leave this for the moment)
Finally the question: is it possible that such a small variation (in absolute terms) in the composition of the atmosphere can provoke a climate change?
The answer I got has been always a "YES" but nobody managed to clearly explain why it is a "YES"
Maybe here on ATS there are better scientists who can give answers backed by solid evidence, I am quite sure of that!! Thanks in advance for any reply.

Waiting.......

reply to post by Atzil321


This misrepresents what is actually being said and transparently so. Although rare, single eruptions can release more than Man in Mans history has done. Ignoring that is very dishonest IMO.

Nothing wrong with wanting a better environment, as all of us do no matter how much we are LIED about. There is something terribly wrong about spinning facts to generate research money by instilling fear or too make a handful of powerful men fabulously wealthy with the Cap and Trade Con-Game.

Apparently the new satellite data from satellites put up expressly for this does not back up the flawed models being used and that is also being hidden. Since when is science political or used to scam money? Science has shoved a huge log in its eye.

reply to post by Atzil321

I think most AGW skeptics agree that co2 has increased due to human activity.
What we disagree about is whether it causes as much warming as claimed. Past history shows that it certainly does not cause anywhere near as much warming as claimed and that most of the time it was temperatures that climbed long before co2.

Also what we are experiencing now is nothing unusual and ice cores and fauna fossils shows that it has been warmer many times over the last 10000 years.

This is the true trend: hot-topic.co.nz...

Are you by the way aware of the fact that co2 levels are nearly record low now compared to past history?
A few millions of years ago the co2 was in THOUSANDS of ppm range which is actually the case for most of earths history.

reply to post by Blaine91555

This misrepresents what is actually being said and transparently so. Although rare, single eruptions can release more than Man in Mans history has done. Ignoring that is very dishonest IMO.

Did you read the links I posted? Both discuss the potential impacts of very large volcanic eruptions.

all studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities. While it has been proposed that intense volcanic release of carbon dioxide in the deep geologic past did cause global warming, and possibly some mass extinctions, this is a topic of scientific debate at present.

reply to post by juleol

Are you by the way aware of the fact that co2 levels are nearly record low now compared to past history?

The last time C02 levels were similar to levels today was 15 million years ago. Lets have a look at the climate back then.

"The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences.

"A slightly shocking finding," Tripati said, "is that the only time in the last 20 million years that we find evidence for carbon dioxide levels similar to the modern level of 387 parts per million was 15 to 20 million years ago, when the planet was dramatically different."

Source:www.sciencedaily.com...

So global warming supporters said last winter would be warmer than usual but it was hotter than usual just like meteorologist Piers Corbyn predicted it using his solar models. If you don't know about him, google him.

reply to post by Atzil321

And if you did your research you would discover that why it was warmer was simply because we weren't in a ice age like NOW.
And climate was by the way better. Earth was warmer on average, but it was actually same or a bit less warm in equator or low latitude regions.
The main difference was that also high latitude regions were temperate instead of cold like today and less difference between summers and winters.
We also had less deserts and droughts back then..

So in other words it was just less cold and had more stable climate than during ice ages.

And seems like you also missed the fact that temperatures increased long before co2 levels and that we have also had ice ages hitting with co2 in thousands of ppm range.