Chalk another up for \"global warming\"

[Duper]

Mountain go Boom!

or rather an Alaskan Caldera ... how does this fit into a states \"carbon foot print\" quota? ... and let's not talk about Hawaii.

[Nightshade]

The natural world will always make human beings look like the microbes they really are. We're not nearly as powerful as our egos lead us to believe.

[Pandora]

The natural world will always make human beings look like the microbes they really are. We're not nearly as powerful as our egos lead us to believe.

Still living in a fantasy world, huh? A bit of research goes a long way:
(1) volcanic CO2 per year is minimal compared to human emissions.
(2) volcanic eruptions typically induce cooling rather than warming, because most of the released pollutants are *not* greenhouse gases.

[Duper]

Pan. What I really want to know (and intend on finding out) is how many active, as in highly active, volcanoes there are globally and how much debris they vent daily into the atmosphere. We have at least 2 in the US that are actively today. St. Helens is not one of them. She's been relatively quite for some time now. Anytime one goes off like the one in Alaska, it effects the atmosphere globally for a number of years to come. And there have been a number of them the last 2 decades. It's just not publicized that much. Particularly when it's in a region that is remote and \"1000's\" of people haven't died.

There are other gases besides CO2 that are considered green house gases.

[Tunnelcat]

Most of the active volcanoes in the world today, combined, do not give off enough CO2 to cause any changes in the gas content of the atmosphere. There are basically two types of volcanoes in the world. One type is typified by very liquid magma that originates in the mantle with very little gas production and tend to be nonviolent eruptions. The volcanoes of Hawaii are a good example.

The other type of volcano is usually created by subduction of the earth's crust at the tectonic plate boundaries and the subsequent melting of the former surface rock. This rock is loaded with water and silica and typically creates a viscous dirty melt that contains a lot of superheated steam and gases under considerable pressure. When these types of volcanoes erupt, they are quite violent with associated superheated steam, fine ash, pumice and gas emissions that get ejected high into the atmosphere. Mt. Saint Helens is an example of this type.

Even with this type of volcano, not enough gas is usually vented to affect the atmosphere. However, the ASH emissions have a far greater influence on world climate. The ash cloud, if large enough, will effectively block the sun and cause cooling of the atmosphere, not warming. There are two examples of volcanic eruptions in human history that were large enough to cause this effect. One famous one was Krakatoa in the Sunda Strait that occurred in 1883 which did cause several colder winters afterward. The other was Mount Mazama that erupted around 5600 BC and created Crater Lake in Oregon. This eruption was about 42 times larger that the Mt. Saint Helens eruption and is recorded in Native American lore with descriptions of colder winters.

We probably won't see any atmospheric cooling unless we get a VERY large explosion of a subduction volcano occurring somewhere on our planet.

[Grendel]

What I really want to know (and intend on finding out) is how many active, as in highly active, volcanoes there are globally and how much debris they vent daily into the atmosphere.

clcik. Neglectible esp. since vulcanism activity didn't change for a looong time. See also here.

[Duper]

Thanks for the links Gren. I would have ran into that eventually. I'm still going to do some research. One site I hit on early was this. There are a quite a few active volcanoes. ... apparently there is a large debate over what "active means". oh well. I figured that is was a spot that is or has been erupting for the last several months.

Interesting info on the volcano in the Philippines back in 91. It was what I figured: now how big the eruption what is actually being expelled.

the El Chichon eruption emitted a much greater volume of sulfur-rich gases (40x more). (that St. Helens)

But I have to smile at:"However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 are dwarfed the estamated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times."

Since there is no real way of quantifying that with precision. It's a guessed-a-mate.

**Edit**
One more thing. Then I'll sit down. Just read this HERE.

First, let's review why we worry about SO2. Kilauea is currently producing up to 4,000 tonnes/day of SO2, resulting in concentrations in air greater than 5 parts per million (ppm) in downwind communities within 50 km (31 miles). Sustained concentrations greater than 0.3 ppm are considered unhealthy. During its journey through the air, the SO2 reacts with oxygen, sunlight, and water to form vog, a mixture of gas and tiny sulfuric acid aerosol droplets. This aerosol mixture appears as a dense haze that obscures Hawaiian scenery and ocean views. The acidic droplets in vog are small enough that they can be inhaled deep in the lung and can pose health problems. In addition to the effects on living creatures, the acid mist can acidify rain and burn the leaves of plants, including many agricultural crops, such as protea, roses, fruits, and vegetables.

I'm not saying that this is proping my previous posts. What grabs me is the imminent danger that is imposed on the area around it.

[Pandora]

Hey Duper, just wanted to post Grendel's link as well. This here is also quite informative:

But why do you think that we cannot measure CO2 emitted by volcanoes and humans? Both effects are so hugely different, we don't even need very good accuracy:

On average, volcanoes spew over 130 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. That sounds like a lot, but compare it to global fossil fuel emissions: in 2005, we emitted more than 27 billion tons of CO2. Emissions from human activity are more than 200 times the emissions from volcanic activity.

Also, here are two figures, again from the above link:

1. No effect of large eruptions on CO2 in the atmosphere:



2. Cooling effect of volcanoes on temperature:

[woodchip]

NatGeo, in their Earths Biography series, attributed volcanoes with changing a once frozen earth to a warmer earth that could sustain life. Seems to me volcano's certainly have enough capacity to warm up our present day earth. The really elegant thing is that the oceans one cell biota soak up CO2, die and along with the absorbed CO2, sink to the ocean floor.
Then eventually the ocean floor, along with the mat of CO2 rich corpses, gets subducted until viola...volcano's once again throw it back into our atmosphere. Nature at it's supreme best. We can never compare to the recycling machine nature is.
So more CO2 emmitted, more and bigger algal blooms you see (read about China's cleaning up a algae bloom for the Olympics) and more CO2 will be absorbed.
Carbon offsets is a scam artists dream come true.

[Will Robinson]

What is the ratio of increased solar output forced warming compared to the increase in anthropogenic forced warming since the invention of the combustion engine?

My money is on mother nature for the win....

[Duper]

From my last link. There is a curious statement in this quote that I've \"bolded\" (as we can't highlight here)

The most abundant constituent of eruptive emissions is water, but that's nothing to worry about. We can always use more water, and Kilauea adds more than 4,000 gallons per minute in the form of water vapor to the Earth's water supply. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the second most abundant constituent in Kilauea emissions. Current CO2 emission rates are about 10,000 tonnes/day. We already have CO2 in concentrations of 0.04 percent and more in the air that we breathe, thanks to human-generated emissions. Fortunately, plants photosynthesize some of this to make oxygen. CO2 is heavier than air and can be a problem in low-lying areas immediately downslope of a volcanic vent when its concentrations exceed 5 percent. Worldwide, human activities produce more than 100 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes. So although Al Gore is worried about CO2 he isn't blaming volcanoes.

Water, SO2, and CO2 comprise about 99 percent of Kilauea's emissions. All the other constituents together account for the remaining 1 percent and there are many of them. Hydrogen (H2), Hydrogen Chloride (HCl), Hydrogen Fluoride (HF), and Carbon Monoxide (CO) are the principal minor constituents. Of these, H2 and CO are already in the atmosphere at trace levels.

Hydrogen chloride combines with moisture in the air to acidify rain and burn vegetation. HCl is also produced by a chemical reaction where lava enters the sea.

Gaseous hydrogen fluoride (HF) is emitted at rates of around 0.2 tonnes/day from Kilauea and is therefore generally not a direct problem; however, fluoride is deposited on the leaves of downwind vegetation and is not metabolized by the plants. Animals grazing on the tainted forage can get fluorosis and ultimately die if the fluoride amounts are high enough. Very few studies have been done on the fluoride content in Hawai`i vegetation around Kilauea. Fortunately, no fluorosis symptoms have been reported in Hawaiian grazers recently.

I didn't say we can't \"period\". I said we can't measure vast amounts accurately with any amount of certainty. They are values that are calculated using any number of variables. But I don't consider them even a ball park figure .... unless you included the entire metro area that the ball park was built in. Just because these guys (whom ever \"they\" are) are authorities and \"experts\" does not mean I have to believe without question every or any statistic that is given to us. Gore tried that and blew it. His graph was irrefutably proven false and was calculated incorrectly due to cliquish info inbreeding. in short These were experts that failed and did not have their data double checked. And yet it was presented to the World as Undeniable Fact! so you will forgive me if i have a hard time swallowing just blindly given to me.

(no aspersion on you Pandora);)

Still i will continue to look into this stuff for my self as I do find it fascinating .. but outside the \"machine\". Things have been hectic but I'll look at the graph you posted and link later today, probably tonight.

[Will Robinson]

Maybe Al Gore knows he's right but didn't trust the average Joe to understand so he tweaked the numbers to make his case more scary...just like Bush knew Saddam had WMD's but cherry picked the data to tweak Average Joe's perception of the threat level...
And maybe Al is just as wrong as Bush about how imminent the threat really is.

[MD-1118]

I guess you could say I'm rooting for the away team on this one. I really don't think we're capable of doing any significant damage to good ol' Gaea (as I'm sure at least a few of you have noted). I did some poking around on Wiki and found this interesting tidbit (image here), a news article by an English station, and an FAQ by none other than NOAA. Anything else of interest can be found by Googling \"global warming\".

Note: I try to be as unbiased as possible, but ultimately this is my opinion that I'm giving. =P

[Sedwick]

I've read that ocean absorption of atmospheric CO2 causes the water to become more acidic, which threatens the ecology there.

[Ferno]

not true sedwick. what it is, is the absorption of sulfur dioxide that causes acidic water, aka acid rain.

All CO2 in the water does is increase plant growth.

[Pandora]

So more CO2 emmitted, more and bigger algal blooms you see (read about China's cleaning up a algae bloom for the Olympics) and more CO2 will be absorbed. Carbon offsets is a scam artists dream come true.

oh, yeah, algae ... they will save us from CO2 induced doom. You might want to read up on the "gulf of mexico dead zone" where algae almost completely eliminate the fish population.

As in other coastal areas, these rich stores of nutrients feed algal populations which explode during the summer, producing oxygen, as all plants do. This oxygen stays near the Gulf's surface. However, these blooms eventually fall to the ocean floor. When bacteria begin decomposing the dead algae, they deplete the oxygen from the ocean bottom, sometimes to the point where none is left. [...] 'You can swim and swim and not see any fish,'' said Dr. Nancy Rabalais, a marine scientist at Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium who has dived in the zone. ''Anything that can't move out eventually dies.''

Even if this wasn't a problem, there is now evidence that algae only take up CO2, if there are not already too many of them. In big blooms of algae, CO2 simply stays at the surface and prevents further absorption.

So, no, algae won't be the magical solution to the CO2 problem, but rather one of the dangers associated with it.

[Pandora]

not true sedwick. what it is, is the absorption of sulfur dioxide that causes acidic water, aka acid rain. [...] All CO2 in the water does is increase plant growth.

Err, Ferno, I think Sedwick is correct: Wikipedia to the rescue:

Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by their uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

[Pandora]

Just because these guys (whom ever "they" are) are authorities and "experts" does not mean I have to believe without question every or any statistic that is given to us. Gore tried that and blew it. His graph was irrefutably proven false and was calculated incorrectly due to cliquish info inbreeding.

What graph are you talking about? Do you mean Thompson's Thermometer? If yes, then as far as I know, he only got the name of the researchers wrong. The main conclusion holds.

[Spidey]

“Wikipedia to the rescue” now that’s a classic.

[Pandora]

I can also give you the British Royal Society or one of the most respected scientific journals. Happy now?

[Spidey]

I just thought it was funny.

[Will Robinson]

What about the graph in the 1990 U.N.'s IPCC climate report which accurately showed the warming period during the Middle Ages (before man ever built his first fuel burning machine) and the \"little ice age\" of the late 17th century. then they conveniently removed the warming period by using really bad science to smooth it over...
That was the result of Al Gore and other radical fundamentalists deciding they needed to make that go away so the public could be more easily converted to their faith. Here's a quote from one of them on the subject of altering data to persuade the rest of us to join their cult, from National Center for Atmospheric Research (NOAA) climate researcher and global warming action promoter, Steven Schneider:
\"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.\"

Here's another question for you, which is cause and which is effect? Is it that CO2 is causing the warming trend or is the warming trend a natural event (like the warming trend the U.N. removed from it's graph) and that warming is causing some of the increase in CO2? I ask because the study of ice cores shows that methane and other gasses are rising right along side the CO2....As far as I've read about it man is not responsible for the other gasses increasing at the same time. If man was artificially increasing the CO2 output the other gasses wouldn't have been increased at the same rate.

And one more thing that bothers me, Al Gore, the high priest of Global Warming, is burning up a carbon footprint 20 times the size of the average Joe, while he flies around in his private jet cashing in on his new job of scaring the natives, when called out on it his biggest excuse was that he buys carbon credits to offset his impact....well it turns out Al Gore owns the company that sells the carbon credits!! He started the company around the same time he started the campaign of scary scenarios and simplified, dramatic, but not quite true statements....

Here's a link to a blog that parallels a lot of my concerns and has a lot of it put together in an easy format for people to read Coyote Blog

[Pandora]

What about the graph in the 1990 U.N.'s IPCC climate report which accurately showed the warming period during the Middle Ages (before man ever built his first fuel burning machine) and the "little ice age" of the late 17th century. then they conveniently removed the warming period by using really bad science to smooth it over...

Will, I go through your points one at a time. Don't know if I get to all of them, I'm freakishly busy at work/real life, right now.

Could you be a bit more detailed about what you think happened with respect to the IPCC from 1990 to now? AFAIK, even in the 1990 IPCC report there was no real data on either the medieval warming period or the little ice age, only a schematic about what scientists at that time **assumed** to have happened from anecdotal evidence, and included the qualification that it was not clear if either even was really global, or restricted to certain parts of the globe.

So there was no real data that could be "smoothed over", but rather in later reports graphs based on real data were shown as it became available; but this new data did not provide convincing evidence for either event. But maybe I am wrong --- if so, could you point me to a link?

But anyways, isn't this water under the bridge now? Science changes when new data becomes available. We have now over 10 different reconstructions of past temperatures by different researchers around the globe (see below for an overly graph of the different reconstructions). Some find evidence for the medieval warm period, some don't. But - crucially - of all these, not a single one finds a medieval warm period that would reach the current temperatures.

[Pandora]

I just thought it was funny.

Sorry then, Spidey, took your smiley the wrong way.

[Ferno]

I can also give you the British Royal Society or one of the most respected scientific journals. Happy now?

Then explain why hobbyists buy co2-making devices and pump the gas into the tanks if CO2 is such a bad thing.

Sulfur dioxide is still prevalent in the system and that contributes to acidification more than CO2 does.

[Pandora]

Then explain why hobbyists buy co2-making devices and pump the gas into the tanks if CO2 is such a bad thing.

No idea. I don't care why hobbyists would do this and that. Maybe sometimes a more acidic environment is desirable? Maybe to encourage plant growth? Maybe you could find out and ask your hobbyist friends yourself?

Sulfur dioxide is still prevalent in the system and that contributes to acidification more than CO2 does.

And where do you know this from? Any evidence? Was there a strong increase in Sulfur Dioxide that could explain the ongoing acidification or has it remained static? If yes, where does it come form? etc.

[Pandora]

Will, about your link. I think it plays more fast and loose with the climate science than Al Gore ever did. A few examples:

First, its instructive to observe how eagerly the climate community threw out its old consensus based on years of research in favor of Mann's study.

As said above, there was no consensus that could be overthrown. There was no real data available. Look at the graph of the 1990 IPCC (in your link) --- it's hand-drawn, for god's sake. AFAIK, Mann was one of the first to actually provide real, numerical data!

It’s unusual for a healthy scientific community to throw out their old consensus on the basis of one study, especially when no one had replicated its findings independently. Which no one has ever been able to do, since Mann has refused to share his models or methodology details.

That is such a lie its not even funny. Look at the graph in my post above, there are a dozen independent replications. True, they did not use Manns exact methods, but still got the same results --- this is still an independent replication. In fact, its even better than using the exact same data and method, because it says that the results of Mann DO NOT DEPEND on a specific type of analysis but are found however you do it. (By the way, there is in fact an paper by Wahl & Amman that does completely replicate Mann, using the same data and the same methods). So what kind of crap is Coyote writing here?

edit: one more because I'm at it (and pissed off):

First, note the last 100 years of the hockey stick. The big upwards spike begins in 1900, long before any large man-made concentrations of CO2 were put into the atmosphere. In fact, even those most fanatical about assigning maximum blame for climate change to man don't blame man-made effects for most of the first half of the 20th century temperature spike. Which begs the question, what caused the 1900-1940 spike of about 1/2 a degree? Answer: Nobody really knows.

Wow ... just wow! that's the old "there has been warming before, so the recent warming can't be due to CO2"-gambit, that only makes sense if you assume that CO2 is the **only** driver of climate. So is it true? That nobody knows why there is a temperature spike between 1900 and 1950?

Of course not! Look at the graph they show just right underneath (the solar output graph). See the similar rise in solar output between 1900 and 1950? Could it really be the case that the sun caused the spike in temperature? Well this is at least what the climate scientists are saying all along. Since the beginning of time and uptil recently climate was driven the sun and other natural factors. The question is, however, why afterwards - after the start of the massive CO2 emissions - the temperatures again started to rise, even though the sun stays stable. That is what nobody can explain without taking CO2 into account, and that is why everybody is so worried --- not because of the bloody hockey stick!!!

[MD-1118]

Pandora... and every other person worried about what a species barely sixty-something million years old - even by an evolutionary standpoint - can do to a planet and ultimately a universe that are exponentially older than it. Take another look at Pandora's graph, then take a look at this long-term graph. Wikipedia to the rescue, eh, Pandora? =P

[Duper]

As I posted earlier. They hockey stick graph wsa proven bogus. .. I don't have time. going to see Batman. I'll link later.

[Duper]

As I posted earlier. They hockey stick graph wsa proven bogus. .. I don't have time. going to see Batman. I'll link later.

here's a graph I found:



why was it "so hot" in the 1400's?? mind you, that's only a degree or two Fahrenheit.

Where I got the statement is here: The Wegman report (it's a PDF file)

[woodchip]

This is all starting to remind me of the 1970's era scare about acid rain. Pictures of defoliated forests in the Adirondacks were the poster child's of the day.
Studies were shown how the lakes were becoming so acidic fish were dying. Claptrap went on for years.

Until one day a scientist (yes a honest to goodness information seeking scientist) did a core sample of the sediments of one of the lakes affected by acid rain. Here is the interesting thing he found out, after which you no longer heard anything about acid rain.

Seems the sediment cores revealed acidification of the lake was going on since the last ice age. However, like rings on a tree, the sediments were banded with carbon layers and a subsequent reduction in acidification. In short, what the scientist found out was periodic forest fires and the resultant ash, would deposit in the lake and thus reduce the acid levels. So in a way, by man trying to prevent forest fires, mankind was causing acid levels to rise but not in the way modeled prior. Industry was not to blame, rather the the attempts to prevent forest fires was.

Before you jump up and down, a similar situation in Yellowstone existed. Fire management lead to excess dry underbrush which result in a fire more devastating than what should have been the norm. Again, nature has it's own system for handling things
and when we think we are going to improve upon us is when nature bites us in the backside.

Pandora while your presentation of the oxygen depredations hold true, especially in closed aquatic system, it is still a natural process that has been going on for millions of years. No one doubts man contributes CO2, but the question remains, is it enough to alter the climate to the point where the demise of humankind is imminent as Algores business scheme would want us to believe.

[TIGERassault]

Woodchip, are you trying to suggest that we should set more forests on fire?

[woodchip]

Woodchip, are you trying to suggest that we should set more forests on fire?

How you extrapolated that is beyond me.

Fire regulations should cover the degree in which we try to manage them. Some areas like the Jack Pine forest require fires for new seedlings to grow. Fires also keep underbrush clear resulting in less severe fires. The idea that homeowners in California cannot remove dry underbrush and dead wood around their homes only adds to the severity of a fire when it does come thru. Forest fires and getting in a wreck on a motorcycle is not a question of "if" but "when".

[Spidey]

Woodchip, are you trying to suggest that we should set more forests on fire?

Yes, controlled burning is a good thing…

[Pandora]

Pandora... and every other person worried about what a species barely sixty-something million years old - even by an evolutionary standpoint - can do to a planet and ultimately a universe that are exponentially older than it. Take another look at Pandora's graph, then take a look at this long-term graph. Wikipedia to the rescue, eh, Pandora? =P

eh? your point being?

[MD-1118]

Point being, Pandora, yeah, sure, we have an impact on our surroundings, but it's nothing compared to what nature itself is capable of doing. As TB says:

The natural world will always make human beings look like the microbes they really are. We're not nearly as powerful as our egos lead us to believe.

Global warming has occurred before, and on worse scales. It's always gotten better. We're not starting any new trends here. It's like fire ants claiming war on humans. What are they going to do, bite us to death? =P

[Pandora]

MD, I suggest you read up what happened to the biosphere in these warming periods, especially when they are coming on so fast as the one we are in now. It isn't pretty.

edit: just to make it clear: I am not some feel good hippy that is worried about the survival of the planet. I am worried about famines, water shortages, hurricanes and plagues.

[MD-1118]

Pandora, I never said you were a feel good hippie. Just to make it clear, I think it's highly presumptuous to think even for a second that we could destroy something that's so much bigger and older than us. No, I'm not saying we shouldn't clean up our act. If you read my previous posts, I'm sure you'll see that I'm all for it. What I am saying is that what we're looking at is biodegradation on a scale far beyond our capabilities. Sure, we contribute to it. Sure, we have an impact. That impact is negligible in the long run, though. We can't change this planet as a whole anymore than we can sprout wings and fly. What exactly do you think will happen if things continue the way ecologists say it will? The ozone layer will decay, the Earth will become extremely polluted, ocean levels will rise, several species will die, numerous other things will happen to the ecology, and ultimately we'll kill ourselves off. What happens after that? This planet will repair itself as it has in the past. The ozone layer will replenish, the pollution will fade away, ocean levels will recede, and new species will evolve to replace the ones we killed off. Who knows? Maybe humanity will re-evolve in the far future. The point is, in the grand scheme of things, we just can't keep this planet down. Mother Nature for the win.

[TIGERassault]

Woodchip, are you trying to suggest that we should set more forests on fire?

How you extrapolated that is beyond me.

You did just come into a thread about how man is producing too much Carbon Dioxide and say that the excess of it is also caused by preventing forest fires, so...

[Genghis]

This planet will repair itself as it has in the past.

What's your timescale for that?