Image via Wikipedia
{Minor updates 25/9}
A reader comment on the earlier post “DOOMSDAY FIRE: Millions of Volcanoes are Stirring Beneath the World’s Oceans” has inspired this post as a better way of replying.
The answer became quite long and involved and became a story of its own. So to Martin Lack, I offer this response.
Martin. I appreciate your commenting but have much to say about your comments.
If we are not to waste time and energy we need to deal in facts. Not personal criticisms, not statements like “just another piece of propaganda….”
This post reveals that a huge number of previously unknown under-sea volcanoes have been discovered. In 1993 over 1000 unmapped were discovered in a small area. In 2007 over 200,000 new volcanoes were surveyed. Hillier and Watts assessed a world-wide total of nearly 3,500,000 submarine volcanoes. (They assess a ratio of active ones to be of the order of 4%). This is an increase of awareness of, from 10 thousand to more than 3 million, 300 times the number of volcanoes, in less than 20 years.
What are the active volcanoes doing? “a single volcano can heat a high-mountain lake to 108 degrees in New Zealand,”, “asphalt volcanoes emit huge amounts of methane and, along with other submarine hydrothermal volcanic vents, they are the leading causes of hypoxia (dead-zones) in oceans, rising temperatures, ocean acidity and worsening oscillation weather patterns”.
FourWinds10 is saying “how little we still know – about this incredible force of nature. We know more about the moon.”
What is this post saying? The world is changing! Earthquakes and volcanoes are altering our environment. Perhaps there is much danger ahead from the active volcanoes and earthquakes. No mention of CO2.
What do our comments say so far?
Reader comment – volcano emissions have been ignored or under-estimated, by AGW scientists.
My comment – varying effects possible for varying reasons. So far the term CO2 has not appeared.
Martin’s comment– mainly – “I think you guys need to read what the (USGS and) the Vice President of the Geological Society (of London) thinks of Ian Plimer’s assertion that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans…”
Mine, herewith:
If you have perused my blog you will have a good idea what I believe about the AGW “science”. Volcanoes get a mention in the ‘Page’ “Carbon Attack” but nothing of significance in the big picture. We, nevertheless, better stick to your thread here.
I have followed the link(s) in your comment and dispute your inferences of Plimer being successfully debunked and that he and this post are promoting propaganda.
Just for the sake of arguing – Even IF Plimer is right, and volcanoes contributed equal or significant CO2 amounts as do humans, your theory that man-made CO2 should be reduced, would still be valid IF CO2, from wherever, is a significant global temperature (GT) driver, and of course, IF increased GT was sufficient to be a problem anyway. So, why are you concerned with Plimer? Perhaps because he must not be seen to be right about anything, because he is a “denier”, and perhaps because then he might be right about other aspects. On the other hand, he is being picked on for a particular issue, as I said, almost irrelevant to AGW itself, because it looked easy to prove him wrong.
So, let’s look at whether he could possibly be right, even though well-rubbished by your linked authorities.
Actually, I haven’t found where Plimer specifically says “volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans…”, but he is being reported as saying that, so let’s accept that as a premise.
From the first linked reference
– [http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php] (Bold by me!).
1. “For example, all studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities.”
Comment:. “all studies to date” Why say that if the studies are accepted as valid? It leaves room for updated studies to supersede the conclusion. {Update 25/9: In any case the statement is wrong! Not ‘all’ studies, because this post reveals one that does dispute the claimed relationship!}
2. “Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).”
C: “projected 35 Gt/yr.. in 2010” Written in 2010, why is this a projected figure and not a known one. I suppose if there was a published estimated amount for 2009, a projection might make sense. Anyway, what this boils down to is that the figure is not a known value. Perhaps it’s within 10 or 20% which suffices for this argument.
3. “There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.”
C: Admission of uncertainties and need to improve estimates, no mention of extent of these what-might-otherwise-be inaccuracies. {Update 25/9: ‘little doubt’ meaning some? Meaning room for doubt?}
4. “The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). ”
C. Now we have some data. A range to cover unknowns, looking good.
5. “In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate.”
C: This is good. currently about 70 above-ground-level volcanoes active at any time. 11 thousand volcanoes of this size might total human guestimated output. .
From the second link, referred to via the first:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf “Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide”
6. Volcanic emissions include CO2 from erupting magma and from degassing of unerupted magma beneath volcanoes. Over time, they are a major source for restoring CO2 lost from the atmosphere and oceans by silicate weathering, carbonate deposition, and organic carbon burial [Berner, 2004]. Global estimates of the annual present-day CO2 output of the Earth’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes range from 0.13 to 0.44 billion metric tons (gigatons) per year [Gerlach, 1991; Allard, 1992; Varekamp et al., 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998];
C: I just liked the sound of this, because it describes processes and confirms estimated CO2 outputs. Except that it uses papers dated 1991, 1992, 1996 and 1998, clearly out-dated. I also liked the bit about the “restoring of CO2 lost from the atmosphere” {Update 25/9: You know, the CO2 that has a claimed life of ? 100 years in the atmosphere!}
7. While such efforts are of great scientific importance, the clear need to communicate the dwarfing of volcanic CO2 by anthropogenic CO2 to educators, climate change policy makers, the media, and the general public is also important. Discussions about climate policy can only benefit from this recognition.
C: What a classic AGENDA issue, no more, no less. (LOL) {Update 25/9: I LOVE this statement!}
Then from http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/page10375.html
8. “but many people, including some Earth scientists working in fields outside volcanology, think that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities do2. “
C: So it’s not just one scientist (Plimer), who has this claimed aberration of a scientific process that confuses “equality” with “dwarfing”. Could he and the others all be wrong?
A quote attributed to Ian Plimer – “support the notion that volcanoes are behind the increases in atmospheric CO2 that we have seen since the industrial revolution began”.
C: I cannot understand anyone saying this. It is fairly clear that our industrial process are creating extra CO2. Volcanoes may also be contributing, but they are logically not responsible for all increases, or behind the increases, as suggested. I’d like to hear Ian’s response. I can only assume that he has been misquoted. You simply have to remove the word ‘the’ and it would make sense.
Where are we at?
Hillary and Watts estimate that there are probably at least 3 million submarine volcanoes, of which an estimated 4% are active.
This would be around 12 thousand active volcanoes.
Your references say we would need about 11,000 active volcanoes to ‘match’ the human CO2 output. A bit of a coincidence? Perhaps Plimer has peer support!
It looks as though it’s time to debunk (try) yet another “denier” scientist or two, or more.
Over to you, Martin.
Related articles
- Doomsday Fire: Million of Volcanoes Are Stirring Beneath the World’s Oceans (tgrule.wordpress.com)
- Volcanic vent surprise (boingboing.net)
- Can a volcano form an island in the middle of the ocean (wiki.answers.com)
The GOLDEN RULE 
Ken,
This is just a holding response, because you have thrown an awful lot of stuff at me there and I have got other things I need to do today.
However, firstly, I would like to ask you why you don’t want AGW to be real? I say this because, I would submit that, if the subject were anything else, people would accept that we should do something because the consequences of being wrong and not taking action are probaly going to be so serious (i.e. Greg Craven’s “What’s the worst thing that could happen” argument).
Secondly, the Keeling Curve data show exponential growth in atmospheric CO2 concentrations that match industrial development (i.e. there was no break in the curve consistent with the end of the global cooling caused by the global dimming effect of other gases in the polluted atmosphere of 1945-75); and the only fluctuation in the Keeling curve data is an annual one (i.e. indicative of the fact that the location of the record [on top of an active volcano] is irrelevant).
Thidly, notwithstanding the global dimming effect that may be happening again (this time due to rapid industrialisation in less developed countries), volcanoes have always been with us; and any recent increase in their activity rates is probably due to global warming (rather than being a potential cause of it).
Fourthly, (perhaps I should have asked this question first), I would hope that you do not dispute the fact that atmospheric CO2 is the main driver of atmospheric warming? If you do, this conversation may be over before it has really begun.
However, before offering any response to these points made here, I would ask you to take a look at two things:
(1) David MacKay’s introduction to his “Sustainable Energy: without the hot air” (especially page 6); and
(2) The very fair-minded (as opposed to abusive or emotive) language used by the Skeptical Science website to falsify all “sceptical” arguments (supporting inaction).
One last point, if I may: Although I spend a lot of time on my blog denouncing the follies of consumerism, free-market economics, and laissez-faire global Capitalism, this does not mean that I am an eco-Marxist. This is because, although Capitalism = Marx’s “money fetishism“, it is also true to say that Marxism = Industrialisation without Capitalism = Herman Daly’s “growthmania“. Therefore, what all political ideologues seem very reluctant to accept is that, as Daly himself pointed out many years ago now, “the Earth may be developing, but it is not growing!” Limits to growth are real; as we are now beginning to find out!
Nice quick reply, Martin.
I will jump to your fourth item. Certainly, I dispute the claimed AGW role of CO2 as the driver of planetary warming. Sorry about that.
If you browse my site either from post archives/climate change or the top bar/carbon attack, that is, if you have a few days to spare, you will see my views and reasons.
To be fair I will check out your 2 recommended links. Maybe it’s time for me to counter the Skeptical Science site. (Will I get censored?)
Have I got the time? Like you I have many active themes, as you will see if you check my posts.
All on the side of justice, welfare and humanity.
Most against authorities because most are corrupt or worse.
The concept of supporting inaction, for me, is not a matter of selfishness. I have 11 1/2 grandchildren and their future will be all that’s left of me in a few more years.
Its just that I see things differently to the AGW supporters. For very good reasons, also seen by many other bloggers. We have really got a good sound scientific basis and a lot of knowledge of the politics, of which AGW supporters generally seem to be quite unaware.
I don’t have any wish to convert you, just responding to your suggestion that I am wrong. I would however love to convert our Aussie government – some hope!!
I appreciate your interaction.
Thanks Ken, but what do you mean “counter” Skeptical Science? Are you telling me that you have found scientific counter-arguments to refute theirs. If so, I would like to see them, as would the Nobel Institute in Sweden. You may well have a scientific background but – I am afraid that does not change the reality that – AGW denial mainly trades on ignorance of complex problems (aided and abetted by unscientific journalists like James Delingpole who think they have uncovered a conspiracy). It was exactly the same with tobacco companies who were able to deny that smoking was dangerous for 50 years…
Bear with me Martin, please.
In the meantime, please check out some of my ‘Carbon Attack” pages.
{Quote: All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them. { Galileo Galilei }}. It follows that having been discovered, they should not then be hidden! (KMc)
Question – What have you actually seen that convinces you that CO2 drives global temperature? I don’t mean someone telling you, I mean some scientific explanation. Why 0.039% of the atmosphere, absorbing 5%, maybe 8% of the radiation encountering that 0.039% presence, re-radiates enough energy back to earth to be significant? Especially when water vapour and clouds exist in abundance and ‘dwarf’ any CO2 influence?
My position is this. The only conspiracy for which their is very clear evidence is that which seeks to deny that we humans are affecting global climate… For us not to be doing so, requires the UN, WMO, and IPCC to be orchestrating a vast, growing, body of scientific evidence to support this view… Because they are most likley to be right, I don’t need to look for a less-likely alternative explanation. All of your objections have been answered to my satisfaction on sites like Skeptical Science… I do not accept that I am being lied to about this; the death of JFK, Marilyn Monroe, or Princess Diana; and I am quite certain tha Osama bin Laden was behind the outrage of 9/11… If you doubt the likelihood of any of the above then, if for no other reason than the fact it does not mention global warming, I think you need to read David Aaronovitch’s book, Voodoo Histories: How conspiracy theory has shaped modern history.
Finally, to return to AGW, if you have good, strong, scientific arguments that suggest that the consensus view is flawed in any way, stop batting them around on the Internet and get them published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal or, failing that, in Energy and Environment (LOL). As Professor Michael Ashley said in his review of Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth… in the Australian newspaper:
“…If Plimer is right and he is able to show that the work of literally thousands of oceanographers, solar physicists, biologists, atmospheric scientists, geologists, and snow and ice researchers during the past 100 years is fundamentally flawed, then it would rank as one of the greatest discoveries of the century and would almost certainly earn him a Nobel prize. This is the scale of Plimer’s claim.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/story-e6frg8no-1225710387147
I am very sorry Martin, that you choose to keep your mind closed.
“requires the UN, WMO, and IPCC to be orchestrating a vast, growing, body of scientific evidence to support this view…”
says it all. That is exactly what is happening. The evidence for this abounds, but the illusion lives on.
Please read ” https://tgrule.wordpress.com/2011/09/25/another-resignation-over-bad-behavior-over-climate-skepticism/” and you
willmight get a glimmer of light through your blinkers.You would do me a favour if you kept your one closed eye on my blog and its associates, for future edification.
I will review your WUWT link and get back to you tomorrow..
Uplifting to get your comment of continued interest. Thanks Martin.
(I was a bit OTT and didn’t mean to be rude, realised afterwards that I was a bit hard.)
It’s an involved subject. There are many reasons to support doubt at least, enough for me to be a critic of the current devestating political processes.
WUWT is the best blog, but there are many others which are onside with my viewpoint.
Sorry to disappoint you Ken, but… I did follow the link on your latest post, but I do not see that someone resigning from some professional institution proves that a conspiracy — that would put even that of the Da Vinci Code in the shade — is being foisted upon the world. However, I think it does prove that the IPCC is losing patience (understandably) with the organised nature of the campaign to sabotage their efforts to make humanity to see sense:
We just cannot continue to treat the environment with contempt; and assume it will just assimilate all our waste. When settlers first moved west from New England, sure, they could use a passing river as a source of water, a washing machine and a toilet; but we are way past the point at which a Frontier mentality was inappropriate.
I am aware of the fact that people on both sides of this crazy “debate” accuse the other of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance but – even if you just deal in hypotheses testable in a laboratory, or with well-calibrated, sensitivity-analysis-tested, probabilistic computer models (see my Computer models – can we trust them?) (like those I have used for much of the last 10 years in hydrogeological risk assessment ) – there is an overwhelming likelihood that:
— the consensus view is correct;
— our climate is changing; and
— it is unprecedented within the last 8 to 10 million years.
If so, then the cause is likley to be something that has changed significantly in that time (rather than something that has not). I think you know what I mean.
Ok Martin, Fair comment.
I think we have what I refer to as mind-set issues.
Not a great deal of joy involved and not much chance of moving forward.
I certainly do not share your trust in computer models. They ring alarm bells for me.
Your concern for the environment is understood and supported. I think I explained that.
My concern is that the proposed and actual procedures in place are not going to solve environmental issues without extra-ordinary damage to humanity.
It would be good if we can manage to keep some sort of contact – say a look at where we are in a few months, because it is interesting to debate with a bit of control.
If I am wrong, I certainly want to know about it. There needs to be some real breakthrough in the AGW submission for that to happen.
I will include your site as one of “interest” on my blog and will keep an eye on your progress.
Good luck Martin.
Thanks for your fair-minded and concilliatory response, Ken. It was not what I was expecting.
I have tweaked today’s post on computer models since I posted my last comment so, if necessary, please take another look. Either way, I think you should bear in mind that having used them (as a consultant) and having critically assessed their use (as a regulator), I do trust them. However, even if this does not convince you that I know what I a talking about, are you not at all pursuaded by my comparison with the UN’s models used to predict population growth?
I too hope we will stay in touch and, as I said before, if you or WUWT (or anyone else) have any convincing arguments to suggest that the consensus view is wrong, you should stop wasting your time in the blogosphere and get the research published properly. If it has any validity whatsoever, you should have no problems finding a publisher (even in world full of conspiracy theories).
We remain on good terms, which is good.
Tried your computer models link without success. Will try again.
Nevertheless there are models and there are models. They can have varying degrees of success depending on the unknown parameters (ones not included), and the unknown values and/or formula of the parameters that are included.
In the case of the climate models, I suggest that they must be less than reliable because of unknown variabilities of humidity, cloud extent and properties, the impossibility of accurately modelling the earth’s surface parameters, the time lags, random (apparently) solar irradiation factors, effects of cosmic rays, changing angles of incidence and reflection, spherical emitting and receiving surfaces, ocean currents, winds, precipitation, snow falls, ice formation/melting, Could you create such a model and expect it to be a reliable prediction tool?
RE publishing papers. I already touched on this, I think. All I can do is read and understand (hopefully) the work of the qualified scientists/physicists, latch on to what makes sense, interpret and maybe adapt their ideas and information, then publish my understanding and their references on the internet to give them support and exposure.
Conversely, scientists or promoters who are not making sense to my thought processing, get negative internet exposure. All I am doing is assessing and commenting on other people’s work. Interpreting, commenting and publishing but nothing really original.
Regards, Ken.
Have now gained access to that page. Probably will want to discuss in further detail. But it can wait.
All well and good but, far more importantly (in the interest of free speech), are you going to approve/accept my comment on your 9/11 post today?
Take it easy Martin! Patience.
No problem. I was not getting aggitated, I just wanted to be sure you were aware I had posted it and were not going to spam it.
I just stumbled upon on your webpage and I think the content enjoyable to read. Keep up the good work.