Volcano CO2 emissions 2

[QCE]

I tried to debate in another thread the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted by volcanos. I have heard the arguement in many places that volcanos emits anywhere from as much to 500,000 times as much greenhouse gases as humans per year.

Does anyone know anywhere to get good data on this? I read a news article that Mount Saint Helens when it was in full eruption mode was emitting a bit less then the state of Washington per day. If that big plume was only as much greenhouse gas emissions as Washington state then I can't see the total emissions from total world volcano emissions being even close to human levels.

I'm doing a bit research on the topic but would appreciate any help.

 

[JAE]

Try this short one: not much but it doesn't speak about erupting volcanos

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

 

[JAE]

Try this one too:

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html

 

[QCE]

Thank you JAE!

I found a nice website that where they like to debate things like this. Check it out:

Then there is the eruption of volcanoes, such as Mt. St. Helens, ejecting dust and ash into the Earth’s atmosphere. The amount of dust and ash in the atmosphere varies the amount of energy that can cause heating or cooling of the Earth’s atmosphere. Volcanoes also eject the kind of compounds that environmentalists call greenhouse gases. A single eruption the size of the Mt. St. Helens eruption released more of these gases, dust and ash into the atmosphere than all such emissions by human activity since the beginning of recorded human history. And there are numerous volcanic eruptions yearly.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=12594

Check out the nutwatch section!

 

[jmw]

Its about balance:
dust and sulphur emissions lead to cooling and the others lead to greenhouse heating.
It is said that some power stations emit enough sulphur to more than compensate in cooling effect for the greenhouse gas effects. Then again, sulphur isn't good for human health hence we move to a low sulphur era where the greenhouse gas emissions become even more significant.
It is said that 33% of atmospheric sulphur is from fossil fuel burning. I don't know what conditions are assumed for the other 67% but would suspect that a good volcano or two can change the stats significantly.
I am curious though why comments on slash and burn seem to have fallen off?
At one time we were told in intricate detail just how much rain forrest was cut and burned every year and every year we seem to have most of Indonesia obscured by smoke from deforrestation..... just how significant is this and is it because we can now lay the blame more safely on developed countries?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[Slugger926]

Take a look at ICEAGENOW.com. They are blaming volcanoes for the increase in water temperatures, and storm activities.

 

[QCE]

The next ice age could begin any day.
Next week, next month, next year, it's not a question of if, only when. One day you'll wake up -- or you won't wake up, rather -- buried beneath nine stories of snow. It's all part of a dependable, predictable cycle, a natural cycle that returns like clockwork every 11,500 years.
It’s a natural cycle!
… it’s a cycle … it’s a cycle … it’s a cycle
. . . And since the last ice age ended almost exactly 11,500 years ago . . .

I love it! I mostly love the "almost exactly" bit.

 

[gwolf]

I think that volcanoes have an enormous impact on global climate. The "Dark Ages" period of ancient Britain has been postulated as a time of very poor harvests and general cold. This has has been linked (perhaps debatably) with an enormous volcanic eruption in the mediteranean at that time.

I attach a link about the London (England) ice fairs on the river thames between the 14th and 19th centuries. A period which modern observers call a mini iceage. The page is short, informative and entertaining.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/r/ri/river_thames_frost_fairs.htm

I feel on balance that geological rather than human influences dominate the climate and that the human greenhouse gas argument is at best superfluous. Perhaps another Krackatoa would shut a few people up. Besides, measuring what happens to the planet (rather than doing anything about it) is huge business. I just can't see the point in measuring with increasing accuracy, something which we already know.

I call it the "University of the bleedin' obvious".

 

[QCE]

It may have been cold in England 400 hundred years ago and it was maybe caused by a volcano is not the type of scientific evidence I was looking for.

I am examining the arguement that volcanoes contribute more greenhouse gases to the environment then humans.

The sulfur debate is something else I will be looking into.

Please don't change this thread into obviously the greenhouse effect is a hoax and obviously I know the answer.

 

[SlideRuleEra]

One answer to your question "Does anyone know anywhere to get good data on this (Volcano CO2 Emissions)?" See this link, Chapter 3 in particular

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/

http://www.SlideRuleEra.net

 

[QCE]

Check out the reference section on chapter 3. I have to read it through, it is the type of stuff that I can use. In 1998 I studied environmental science at a university and we were given tons of papers like this. Do you think I could find them now? No. Thank you SlideRule.

 

[gwolf]

In recorded human history there have been periods of extreme cold at times well before industrialisation and when the human population was low. This is backed up with Ice core data and some tentative links have been made with strong volcanic activity.

Given that the extremes of climate were much greater than what we are currently seeing, and human activity was much lower, I conclude that volcanoes (or other natural phenomena) have a much greater impact on world climate than humans.

Or did I miss something?

 

[QCE]

Yes, you missed my question.

 

[gwolf]

Ok, point taken, you want hard numbers, I don't have them.

I doubt if you will find them but if you do then please post. If the hard scientific answer is what I think it is then there will be a lot of very unhappy CO2 bashers and research budgets may be slashed. In the interim I resort to empiricism as expressed in my previous post.

Too bad your mild insult was edited out of this thread, I genuinely found it hugely entertaining.

 

[casseopeia]

QCE,

If you need additional bolstering for your arguments regarding CO2, do a bit of research about the atmosphere on Venus, which is 96.5% CO2.

Venus has the worst case of greenhouse effect of any planet in the solar system, lots of volcanos, little human activity (except for a crashed probe or two), an out-of-commission, solar-powered vehicle the size of a Tonka truck, and not one SUV.

Lots of complicated reasons for this too extensive to go into here. Besides, I don't want to get b**ch-slapped like gwolf did.

"If you are going to walk on thin ice, you might as well dance!"

 

[jmw]

The Ice Fairs on the river Thames were a result, in part and in combination with winter temperatures, of the constriction in flow caused by the old London Bridge. Whether the winter temperatures were as severe as this would otherwise imply is a question.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[RDK]

I look at the environment as a lot of people pushing a ball around in hilly country.

Different people push the ball in different directions.

However the ball always tries to return to a stable position at the bottom of a hill.

Sooner or later the forces on the ball will push it over the top of a hill and it will try to return to a new stable position at the bottom of a different hill.


That’s what is happening in the environment. There are a lot of different forces, volcano’s, human emissions, bovine flatulence, and other forces pushing the environment out of its stable position. We right now don’t know what direction the resultant force vector is pushing the environment nor do we know where the top of the hill is or what is on the other side.

If we had a couple dozen identical planets they by all means try an experiment on one or two to see what is happening.

However we only have one planet and we are making changes that just might be the incre4mental push that pushes the planet to a new ecological equilibrium.

The results may be disastrous or may be beneficial. The new equilibrium will take thousands of years if not millions to be established.

Why take the chance with our only planet?


Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Why take the chance with our only planet?

And taking, or not taking, which action would be considered, "taking a chance"?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[Slugger926]

Naturally occurring bubbles of liquid carbon dioxide rising from the ocean floor - June 8, 2004 – For the first time ever, scientists using a camera-equipped submarine have been able to witness an undersea volcano during an eruptive episode.

Exploring the ocean floor in an area known as the Mariana Trench, the researchers “found bubbles of liquid carbon dioxide being released into the sea, enlarging up to a thousand times and turning to gas as they drifted upward.” (I have been saying for years that rising CO2 levels are a result of naturally occurring processes in the seas. This helps confirm those statements.)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl....wvolc0608/BNS

 

[jmw]

Incidentally, is it the CO2 we should consider or the sulphur?
High sulphur content will bring cooling. Some fossil fuel burning power plants produced so much sulphur that they overcompensated for the greenhouse gases. Hence reducing fuel sulphur content will exacerbate the greenhouse effect.
My point is, which volcanic emission is the most significant for your argument? and can you deal with one emission in isolation? Some volcanoes emit far more sulphur than others.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com