Volcanos Emit More CO2

This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.


Objection:

One good volcanic eruption puts out more CO2 than a decade of human emissions. It is ridiculous to think reducing human CO2 will have any effect.

Answer:

Not only is this untrue, but it couldn’t possibly be true given the CO2 record from any of the dozens of sampling stations around the globe. If this were true, that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in CO2 concentrations, then these CO2 records would be full of spikes, one for each eruption. The fact is, it is a very smooth and regular trend.

(image from Global Warming Art)

The fact of the matter is, the sum total of all actively out gassing volcanoes emit CO2 at a rate that is about 1/150th that of anthropogenic emissions.


This is just one of dozens of responses to common climate change denial arguments, which can all be found at How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic.


“Volcanos Emit More CO2” was first published here, where you can still find the original comment thread. This updated version is also posted on the Grist website, where additional comments can be found, though the author, Coby Beck, does not monitor or respond there.

99 thoughts on “Volcanos Emit More CO2

  1. PaulinMI: uh, no.

    minimum extent 2012: 3.41 million square kilometers
    minimum extent 2013: 5.10 million square kilometers
    You do the math yourself, but a small hint: if you get “60% more”, you need to go back to primary school to learn basic math.

    Like

  2. PaulinMI, you did not provide a source, which makes you the source, so I hereby take it up with you.

    You might want to think about the sources you use.

    Like

  3. [blockquote]PaulinMI
    September 29, 2013

    Use google kook.
    I’m not concerned about a single data point.

    It’s the trend that has my interest.[/blockquote]

    But….Pauline….it was *you* that showed concern about this single data point.

    Everybody else understands perfectly well that individual years show variability, and to them it is evident that it is the trend that is of interest:

    Is that the trend you are referring to, Pauline?
    Or are you referring to some other, imaginary, trend cooked-up on some kook-blog like Anthony Watts’?

    Like

  4. Uh, no again.
    You and Marco feigned ignorance of our friend Freddy’s 60% statement and what was being compared.

    I informed you of the comparison. My concern couldn’t be less.

    Uh, yes, that is the trend. Is there another ?

    Like

  5. Not sure what you mean by that, Pauline…
    … or do you mean, “if we cherry-pick the data, can we manufacture an erroneous and misinformational graph that suits our narrative”?.

    The amount of ice at both poles is trending down.
    In the Arctic, it is trending *steeply* down.

    The reason for this is (or should be) very obvious:
    There is a radiative imbalance between solar radiation coming in and radiation being emitted by the Earth.
    This imbalance is causing heat to accumulate on earth.
    This accumulated heat is responsible for the increase in surface temperatures as well as the increase in ocean heat content.
    The increase in ocean heat content is obvious from the thermal expansion of the oceans.

    All things considered, what is occurring is very easy to understand and perfectly obvious to most people bar a certain minority who suffer from a combination of psychological denial and intellectual deficiency that prevents them from accepting this reality.

    They justify their intellectual insufficiency with bizarre stories of scientific conspiracies.

    Like

  6. Well, likewise.
    I am not sure if you’re being intentionally obtuse or something other.

    Where exactly was data cherry picked?
    It was you who supplied the graphic, which I did not assume was cherry picked.

    Like

  7. “You and Marco feigned ignorance of our friend Freddy’s 60% statement and what was being compared.”

    Nobody knows what kai’s talking about. Not even you, Pauline, you waste of sperm.

    Like

  8. PaulinMI, I did not feign ignorance at any point. It’s bad enough that we had a Bruce Frank who repeated falsehoods and that those were supported by the freddykaitroll, but your willful misrepresentation of what I wrote is one level worse.

    Like

  9. When one spends more time attempting to score points and demean rather than educate and inform, one is a hack.
    Most here are self demonstrating hacks.

    Now, see if you can explain to Freddie why his focus on the 60% is irrelevant.

    Like

  10. Yes, you are, Pauline.

    A hack through and through.

    (PS his 60% isn’t merely irrelevant, it’s a lie however, you don’t care to notice lies if they accord with your faith, do you)

    Like

  11. I believe I did that already, Pauline, when I posted:

    At no point has Arctic ice increased 60% this year.

    Arctic ice started the year at 12.885 million km2.
    Arctic ice reached a high of 15.127 million km2 on Mar 15
    Arctic ice melted down to a low of 5.099 million km2 on Sep 13.
    Arctic ice is increasing again and is now 5.24 million km2.

    In conclusion: Freddy is an idiot.

    Like

  12. So, Arctic ice extent increased by 17.4% this year….and then decreased by 66.3%.

    A-ha! That’s where Freddy is confused – Arctic ice has *decreased* by 66% this year, but that doesn’t suit his irrational belief, so he simply lied and said the opposite of the truth.

    Like

  13. “….When one spends more time attempting to score points and demean rather than educate and inform, one is a hack…..Most here are self demonstrating hacks….”

    That is just disingeuous nonsense Paul. People like you and Freddy do not post here in order to become educated. You post here for the purposes of attempting to score ideological points or simply to troll.

    You deserve any and all abuse you get in response.

    Like

  14. It is really incredible what stupid logical flaws have been committed here regarding the 60% arctic sea ice increase this year compared to last year at the day September when the minimum was detected.

    Marco, mandas, Craig et al: why on earth do you have such enormous difficulties in grasping such simple facts?

    Like

  15. oh, look, Freddykaiberendanekejoetroll is back, after he was booted off deltoid for sockpuppetry.

    He also still does not know basic math:
    minimum extent 2012: 3.41 million square kilometers
    minimum extent 2013: 5.10 million square kilometers

    That’s not 60% more…

    Like

  16. But Freddy, Arctic ice extent *decreased* 66% this year. Why are you having so much trouble with this fact?

    And stop pretending ice increased by 60% this year – at no stage has it done any such thing.

    Here’s the trend:
    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/polyakfig2.jpg?w=500&h=340

    The mystery is this: why is Freddy so keen on appearing to be an ignorant buffoon deeply committed to expressing views that fly in the face of reality?

    Like

  17. Well, mandas, Craig and marco, thanks for further making my point.
    It’s ok to be a hack. But, does it help the people of the earth? Or the planet itself?

    Some would suspect that this type of hackery suggests you’re being compensated or have interests aligned with those groups you (claim to) despise. By adding to the hand waving and confusion, the situation remains unclear and suspect.

    For me, it’s good theatre.
    For you, hey, it’s your cause (supposedly), I’ll assume you know what you’re doing,

    Like

  18. Now, I can imagine the non-sensical response I could expect from the above observation.

    So, I will issue a challenge –
    Who would reconcile comments 75 and 76 in a manner which proves me wrong?

    Like

  19. PaulinMI, it is my experience that the perennially confused, which includes you, cannot be educated. Whatever we say you will fail to understand. I therefore do not intend to make an effort to answer your challenge, because by definition, with you as the recipient of the explanation, you will not understand that explanation.

    Like

  20. Would that be the kind of error of omission you get when you cherry-pick two data points and attempt to use them to support your fake trend, as the ever-incompetent Freddy has done?

    Like

  21. “But Freddy, Arctic ice extent *decreased* 66% this year. Why are you having so much trouble with this fact?”

    Because it’s devastating to his case.

    Like

  22. “…By adding to the hand waving and confusion, the situation remains unclear and suspect….”

    On the subject of hand waving – how about you tell us all what your point is Paul. Is it that the extent of the Arctic sea ice has increased by 60% (or so) this year? Let’s just assume for a second that is true – so what?

    If you are really trying to make some sort of claim about climate change based on a single year trend, then just wait there while I call for the men in white coats to come and collect you. Your delusions would have to be so strong that you would be unable to function in society – although given where you come from, maybe not. You do live in the land of the delusional.

    So let’s assume that you aren’t completely delusional. What’s your point again?

    Like

  23. Fair question mandas.
    Point is
    1) that a single data point is irrelevant.
    2) by including this point in the trend with context it should be clear that the recent data strengthens the case for mr Craig Thomas.
    3) excluding continues the back and forth with no resolution as they talk past each other.

    Like

  24. Howz everybody?

    Mandas, Marco, Wow, etc. . . . and dear Paul.

    The usual climate change debaters.

    I do miss this, guys. . . Some of my fondest moments were engaging in these threads and watching so-called skeptics print without thought because they are indifferent to being wrong and exposed as such. Life with two two-and-a-half year olds and an increasingly stressful career have robbed me off this joy of late.

    Wish I could engage in the fun. I’m just glad my gluttonous country has staved off default for a few more hours and I don’t have to head to the hills with my family and a surfeit of shotgun shells and canned beans–yet. The way things are going I guess it will at least be relatively warm in the mountains.

    Mandas/Coby: hope all is well Down Under. It’s heresy I know, but I might just shoot an email to our dear friend Crakar. He too is a Seattle Seahawks fan; we had that one thing in common and my Birds are doing fairly well this year.

    Cheers all.

    Skip

    Like

  25. Hey skip

    Nice to see you are still alive – although I still see the occasional facebook post with your smiling face peering out.

    Things are good here. I am currently in the wilds of central Queensland looking at wombats with my wife – doing some research on reproductive behaviour. Much better than sitting in an office.

    I have a Seattle Seahawks sweatshirt at home somewhere from years ago. I was on an Air Force visit to Boeing and it was a cold day so I just went into a store to buy something to keep warm. That’s about the extent on my knowledge on the subject.

    Keep well and hope to see you around more often.

    Like

  26. Glad you’re doing well skip.
    You possibly won’t have time, but if you do, it would be interesting to hear what you consider gluttonous.

    And it appears you bought into the default scare, but surely you know better?

    Good luck on the new career venture.

    Like

  27. “Life with two two-and-a-half year olds and an increasingly stressful career have robbed me off this joy of late.”

    Aye, I guess even two-year-olds are a bit more prone to reasoned discourse than even Pauline here, never mind Kaitroll.

    Like

  28. It was something to go back nearly 5 years and see this debate evolve.

    I’d like to add a couple new points and also get an answer to the now known *cycle* I predicted in the early 2000’s that we are now headed into several decades of cooling. Please feel free to address this, as it is also known that co2 continues to rise to levels as high as they’ve been a few million years. I do agree that the additional human emissions is the tipping point too by the way.

    It’s widely accepted that we account for about 5% of the emissions and many than equate that this can’t possibly be significant, as nearly 1/2 of that is absorbed/used by the current natural systems it’s estimated. Well that little bit is adding up and certainly will have an impact at some point. I just don’t know what that ‘is’. It appears that there is NOT that connection as once thought of co2 > rise in greenhouse effect > rise in global temps.

    The lower levels of the ocean temps are rising yet the surface is cooling, which brings up my next point. For the record it’s estimated volcanoes cause much less than 1% of the co2, and many say a fraction of 1% so that’s just a bad comparison within the argument either way. But, the ocean exchange is over 40% of the co2 emissions and close to equal as a co2 sink…so it’s possible some of this is caused by volcanoes on the ocean floor, but I have not seen any credible studies on this and if these are considered in the fraction of 1% of emissions due to volcanoes. I assume they won’t be leaving volcanic activity accounting for 1/100th of the impact on emissions as anthropogenic emissions.

    That said, it still doesn’t account for my initial point, that global temperatures are decreasing and ice caps are expanding. My primary point all along back in the early 2000’s was how truly powerful the earth and it’s biosphere are. I’m not saying over a long enough period we couldn’t damage this balance beyond repair and must continue global efforts to reduce our impact, but it appears that the normal *cycle* is in place as we are in for a few decades of global cooling.

    So does this mean HAARP will cease and desist with the chemtrails and Geoengineering? 🙂

    Like

  29. Hi Mark,

    Your post is a bit factually challenged.
    – We are responsible for 200% of *net* CO2 emissions, this is the only relevant metric (see this)
    – the ocean surface layer is not cooling
    – global temperatures are not decreasing
    – ice caps are not expanding

    It is pretty critical that any thoughts on a scientific issue be grounded in our best assessment of the facts.

    Like

  30. “….I predicted in the early 2000′s that we are now headed into several decades of cooling…..”

    Looks like you were wrong then Mark.

    “….so it’s possible some of this is caused by volcanoes on the ocean floor, but I have not seen any credible studies on this …..”

    I think I have spotted your problem Mark – you spent too much time trawling denier blogs and not enough reading science.

    “….That said, it still doesn’t account for my initial point, that global temperatures are decreasing and ice caps are expanding…..”

    Well, since that is happening….. what’s your point again?

    “….So does this mean HAARP will cease and desist with the chemtrails …..”

    That’s either great Poe, or you are an idiot. Given your thoughts about expanding ice caps, I’m going with Option B.

    Like

  31. Maybe someone with more knowledge on the subject can weigh in, but I believe, Mark, that there is a known, measured and consistent net energy input which will result, (must result?) in higher global temps. And so the warming continues at a greater pace than ever before.

    Like

  32. We are all aware that volcano’s erupt on a fairly regular basis right? Just as any person can tell you, you can find data that backs up any argument. I would be interested to see the daily and weekly measurements for periods that the volcano’s are releasing smoke, CO2, etc. as opposed to yearly. Many things look steady when data is compiled and categorized in a specific way.

    I will say this, if the temperature rising by a few degrees is as dire as global warming alarmists claim, how did so many people survive in places like Greenland when science has shown temperatures were higher by not just 2-3 degrees, but 10-20 degrees? How did the planet survive?

    Precisely how many failed predictions and models must the global warming alarmists make for you to abandon their fear mongering?

    Like

  33. The original post shows a plot of monthly values and contains links to sources where you can find daily values. Basically, if your site is situated in a location where a particular eruption shows in your data, you pick another site or discard these values and use ones where the wind direction prevents such pollution. The goal is to measure the CO2 level in well mixed atmospheric samples.

    No one is saying that volcanoes do not cause local variations in CO2 levels, they do and in fact this can kill you if you don’t realize where you are. But the original posts stands wrt global levels. I would like to see data that backs up your argument that volcanoes are causing the rising CO2 levels given your post that you can find data to back up anything.

    Re Greenland: I’m curious as to how many people you think “survived” in Greenland whenever whatever you are alluding to happened? The survival of “the planet” is not in question, it is the survival of ecosystems and the societies that depend on them that is of concern.

    Re: “Failed predictions”…you mean like “global warming stopped in1998” or “arctic sea ice recovered in 2008” or what specifically are you referring to?

    Like

  34. Erik, when one is looking at a side that is two orders of magnitude higher than the other, what do you expect to “learn” from your demand?

    And, as coby just demonstrated, you already HAVE that information, already there for you on this thread, but you didn’t even bother to look.

    So why should anyone expect that your question was in any way, shape or form, legitimately asked and not a complete JAQ off?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s