It ain't volcanoes either
| It ain't volcanoes either15-02-2011 04:27 | |
Desertphile ☆☆☆☆☆(33) |
Compared to human-produced CO2 via burning fossil fuels, volcano-produced CO2 is negligible though it still has a measurable effect to the whole. Humans produce vastly more CO2 than volcanoes, by about two orders of magnitude: http://www.cabnr.unr.edu/gustin/ERS765/geologic%2520carbonarticleJMB.pdf http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2001/2001RG000105.shtml http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/txt/ptb1119.html http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/19/co2-and-the-volcanoes/ http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/ |
| 16-02-2011 04:01 | |
| Hayduke☆☆☆☆☆ (21) |
Desertphile wrote: Is this difference significant? |
| RE: It's not volcanoes!!!01-12-2012 22:57 | |
| Globalwarmingisfake☆☆☆☆☆ (1) |
All of you are wrong first of all if you weigh naturally occurring co2 against human made co2 you get a big difference: humans only contribute to &3.4% of all co2. So where does it come from? The oceans! Ever heard of Raults law? It's a basic chemistry principal that says that: if a liquid heats op, the solubility of dissolved gasses within that liquid goes down. So long story short the oceans eat up due to shifts in earths orbit and then dissolved co2 comes out of that water. Second of all co2 is hardly responsible for earths past warnings if you actually look at the graphs ( not the exaggerated versions that climatologists show) you can see that the temperature goes up first and then when it's three quarters of the way to its natural peak then co2 goes up. If you're not sure that I'm right get a two letter bottle of 7up and then open it and then put it out on the counter top for an hour. Then get another one and then leave it in the fridge for an hour. The 7up on the counter top will have Way less co2 in it than the one in the fridge because the 7up on the counter top is warmer, therefore more co2 comes out of it! |
| 04-12-2012 15:14 | |
| Gray-Wolf☆☆☆☆☆ (13) |
Though rarer than temp leading the dance our PETM shows a period where CO2 lead the dance and oddly probably by fossil fuels being consumed at a plate margin! We , of course are adding CO2 far faster than the PETM event so the rate of change today will be faster. As for our wish to reduce global GHG levels? Well we busted our own record for outputs this year so it appears we do not give a jot about the results of such increases whether we believe in them or not! We must not neglect the dormant part of our own carbon cycle either! The last time CO2 was at todays levels Greenland was 1/3 ice free and the West Antarctic Ice sheet did not exist. Once global dimming is dealt with by the clean air technologies being employed in Asia temps will rapidly rise to those matching the GHG potential. This will melt out 1/3rd of Greenland (as it did last time) and W.A.I.S. (as it did last time) and re-animate the dormant carbon cycle buried there raising GHG's further and so melting more ice and adding more of our dormant carbon cycle. Antarctica became glaciated when global CO2 dropped below 450ppm. Do you think that todays levels , plus the addition of the dormant portion of our carbon cycle hidden in permafrost and under ice sheets will leave us below or above that ppm? Conservative studies say we have at least 39% of our current emissions to add on top of present day CO2 ppm as the permafrost/ice melts and it's dormant carbon becomes active again. When you look at a world with an ice free Antarctica and Greenland you look at our potential carbon cycle as it was during the PETM but with our Fossil fuel emissions sat on top. What would that do to global temps I wonder??? Edited on 04-12-2012 15:15 |
| 17-01-2013 05:08 | |
| jakeliu☆☆☆☆☆ (3) |
the one in the fridge because the 7up on the counter top is warmer, therefore more co2 comes out of it! |
| RE: 300ppm max in the past11-05-2013 07:01 | |
| duclongtran☆☆☆☆☆ (1) |
Hi, can anyone please explain the mechanisms that brought the CO2 in the atmosphere to about 300ppm up steeply then came down slowly about 110K years cycles? Why 110K year cycles? |
| 05-05-2014 10:43 | |
| Kano☆☆☆☆☆ (23) |
Yes man produces more CO2 than volcanoes, even though under ocean volcanoes have not been factored in, oceans are 70% of our surface so thats a lot. However it is not a problem as CO2 is logarithmic and it's warming effect reduces with concentration, a doubling of CO2 will give just 1 degree C of warming and that would be nice, not scary. |
| 29-09-2014 15:08 | |
| James_S☆☆☆☆☆ (5) |
Climate change skeptics are using a new study about geothermal heating under the world's ice caps to claim that volcanoes are the real cause of glacial melting, not global warming. The study was conducted by researchers at the Institute for Geophysics at the University of Texas at Austin (UTIG) and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It analyzes geothermal heat below the glaciers in West Antarctica and acknowledges that these sources — which include magma movement and volcanic activity — do contribute to some ice cap melting. Yet, according to the researchers behind the study and other experts in the field, these findings do not actually provide new insight into why the ice is melting. "It is true that there are active volcanoes in West Antarctica, and so there may have been some local changes, but in most cases, at most times, volcanoes are not erupting under the ice," Richard Alley, a geologist at Penn State, told VICE News. "This paper is exciting for modelers and geologists who focus on Antarctica, but it doesn't tell you anything about why the ice is now thinning." How much climate-change denial can the market bear? Read more here. Instead, UTIG's research provides more detailed mapping areas of the geothermal heat sources under the Thwaites Glacier, which is one of the most vulnerable parts of the rapidly deteriorating West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Using radar detection, the researchers also pinpointed heating levels at a value of two to three times higher than previously thought and which has been used in previous studies. With this new data, scientists will be able to plug in more accurate heating values into their calculations while studying the collapse of glaciers in the region. 'People have to be careful when drawing hasty conclusions into how much volcanoes can affect glacial melting.' Dusty Schroeder, the lead author on the UTIG study, told VICE News that this information gives important insight into how hot the earth is underneath the glaciers and thus how it contributes to certain changes. "Especially in terms of trying to predict the rate of rising sea levels, this is a factor you need to take into account," Schroeder said. While this form of geothermal heating does contribute to glacial melting, it does not necessarily mean "climate alarmism has suffered yet another devastating setback." Climate change will drown world heritage sites. Read more here. "People have to be careful when drawing hasty conclusions into how much volcanoes can affect glacial melting," Eric Rignot, an earth science professor at University of California Irvine and a principal scientist at NASA, told VICE News. Rignot, also the lead author of a study out last month that documented widespread retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, said geothermal heating contributes to a few millimeters of melting annually, compared to rising sea temperatures which can trigger rates of up to 100 meters each year. 'Geothermal heating is not enough by itself to have caused the observed changes.' "The studies can be confusing individually, you have to put it in a larger perspective by looking at all the studies together," Rignot said. According to Schroeder, Rignot's paper, and another that came out in May, show that warm oceans are currently the main cause of glacier loss at the edge of the ice. "The fastest glacial changes are happening where the ocean is warmer," Schroeder said. "Geothermal heating is not enough by itself to have caused the observed changes." In response to those who are using his study to deny climate change, Schroeder confirmed that volcanic activity is not the dominant force of ice loss and rising sea levels. "If you want to understand how the glaciers are changing, you can't just look at the ice, you can't just look at the climate system, you can't just look at the geology, you have to look at the whole picture," he said. Follow Kayla Ruble on Twitter: @RubleKB |
Join the debate It ain't volcanoes either:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Volcanoes | 4 | 04-06-2019 23:32 |