More on Volcanoes and CO2 Emissions
In my post of yesterday: Volcanoes and CO2 Emissions, I quoted the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as follows: “The world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.” Human activity therefore is a little over 100 times more potent than volcanoes.
In response, I received this comment: “You know perfectly well volcanic activity is not a constant regular occurrence and therefore can’t be measured and compared in any particular year.”
The fact that something isn’t a regular occurrence doesn’t mean it can’t be measured, and that an average of those measurements isn’t meaningful. In fact, this point is critical in our understanding of climate change itself. It’s the difference between weather (what’s happening outside your window right now) and climate (the average of weather conditions over significant periods of time).
If the explanation above isn’t sufficient, the commenter is free to take this up directly with the U.S. Geological Survey at 1-888-ASK-USGS (1-888-275-8747), or via their contact page here.
You really should just block your idiot troll. He doesn’t add anything but long-debunked right-wing nonsense. It’s like inviting people from The Blaze or Infowars to randomly post bullshit on your page to your readers for free.
🙂
To put this into proper perspective, There are an average of ~60-80 volcanic eruptions per year, from between 50-70 volcanoes… Which means some years will have more, while other years will have less, volcanic activity.
Also, some years will have bigger volcanic eruptions than others. Clearly, Pinatubo and Mt St Hellens both resulted in far greater emissions than the continual burp from Kilauea… But it all balances out in the end, any given decade will have roughly the same basic level of eruptions as compared to previous decades… and certainly centuries will compare similarly to previous centuries, etc..
BUT ALL OF THIS MISSES THE BIGGER PICTURE.
The aerosol emissions from volcanic activity tend to increase the albedo of the atmosphere for a period of time – shading and cooling the planet, and the sulfuric emissions of volcanic activity bond with existing methane and NOx in the atmosphere, lowering the GWP of the existing GHG buildup of the atmosphere… So even in times of much greater volcanic activity, the net effect from the volcanic emissions is likely a net negative CO2e, and a net cooling – which then feeds back.
Just looking at CO2 misses that greater point.
Craig,
“BUT ALL OF THIS MISSES THE BIGGER PICTURE”
Ah yes, shouting always adds credibility! Just as name calling and indignant outrage display the devotion of the true believer !
My point remains valid.
What is the point of dismissing any particular cause of climate change in preference for another?
Why call people “climate deniers” who suggest that volcanic or other forms of subterranean activity contribute to changing climatic conditions?
Recent research reveals volcanic activity contributes to climate conditions in far more subtle ways than has been measured in the past.
To effectively separate and quantify the human impact on climate change, it’s important to understand and quantify natural impacts also.
When NASA scientist Dr von Frese first drew attention to effect of subterranean volcanic activity on the Arctic ice cap, in particular to the ‘melt’ in Greenland, he generated an equal amount of ‘heat’ from AWG fanatics who claimed he was “flirting with climate denial”.
The selective use of data reveals only poor scientific analysis, as does identifying any inconvenient dissent as “right-wing nonsense”.
There is so much to learn about the effect of Volcanic activity. Fro instance, we are only starting to realize the effect of “hotspots” in the Arctic.
The effect of volcanic activity may seem minor and not significant in ice cap melt, but if it can warm the ice even a little, the effect would be to enable glacial ice to slide more rapidly into the ocean.
The origins of ” El Nino” weather conditions have a direct correlation to subterranean volcanic activity.
Volcanic activity can’t be just “averaged”! The impact and effects are little understood and the timelines are really immense.
As an example, about 2600 years ago, a volcano erupted close to Pine Island Glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. This was a monumental eruption, at least as big as Krakatoa in Java. Naturally, no one was around to observe or measure the eruption at that time.
By the time humans reached the Antarctic, the volcano was forgotten and buried deep beneath glacial rock and ice.
However, the volcano is still active. The speed of the glacier towards the coast has increased in recent decades, creating a debate as to whether an increase in volcanic heat has caused some, all, or none of that acceleration.
The problem is measuring the increase(if any) in the volcanic activity. Given the sporadic nature of volcanic activity, accurate measuring is not an easy task.
The same questions arise when attempting to measure “aerosol” activity.
The location and composition of volcanic eruptions as well as the size/kind of eruption must be factors to be considered in any climate/weather effects.
Glenn and other “true believers” always dismiss volcanic emissions as being composed of the same elements. In fact, no two volcanic eruptions or emisionss are the same. Different eruptions emit different substances, even the same volcano can can change the composition of emissions at any given period.
Vehement ranting by AWG extremists and the truly “volcanic” loudness of their protestations, only display their ignorance and blind adherence to a most unscientific manifesto.
To say “man made emissions 100 times more potent than volcanoes”, without any real understanding of the nature of Volcanic activity or ability to measure the size, scale and composition of the effects, is not just unscientific, but just ideologically driven propaganda.
It’s also a pointless argument, since very few people would argue that increased man made pollutant emissions are a good thing!
Fanatical advocacy and abusive conduct is both unhelpful and counter-productive. Moreover, to more moderate readers it only creates the impression you are afraid you may be wrong. and the despised “heretics” may be right!
Why invent “enemies” and “deniers”, why not assess all information with an open and inquiring mind?
Er,…I might be wrong, but isn’t that the basis of both science and analysis ?