The Climate Change agenda

[lwd]

Did a little looking around.
This article doesn't mention carbon at all much less CO2:
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/finalpro ... _55669.htm
This one makes a passing reference to CH4:
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/6594.full
Again no mention in this one:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 77fd9e23e4
Now it could be because this just isn't an area studied but the scientific literature doesn't seem to support any sort of massive CO2 release with volcanoes. Sulfer and various halogen compounds yes but CO2 no.

I did find this one:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 1d08bd88a7

Abstract
Global emission of carbon dioxide by subaerial volcanoes is calculated, using from volcanic gas analyses and SO2 flux, to be from passive degassing and from eruptions. Volcanic CO2 presently represents only 0.22% of anthropogenic emissions but may have contributed to significant “greenhouse” effects at times in Earth history. Models of climate response to CO2 increases may be tested against geological data.

Looks like the numbers didn't copy. They were both on the order of 30,000,000,000,000 grams/year. I make that as 30,000,000 metric tons/year. Now how much is due to this one volcano is another matter. It could be significantly in excess of that from yearly average emissions.
A bunch more of possible interest of this google:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en ... =&as_vis=1
In particular this one suggest I was wrong:
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/ ... /28/10/915

Although CO2 and H2O account for more than 90 mol% of volcanic gases, the rates at which these gases are emitted from volcanoes are difficult to determine because of their high atmospheric background levels. We report the first precise field measurements of volcanic CO2, and H2O, in addition to HCl, HF, and SO2, in the plume of Masaya volcano, Nicaragua, a basaltic volcano with a record of Plinian activity. The molar ratios for CO2: SO2 (2.3–2.5) and H2O: SO2 (66–69) observed in February–March 1998 and March 1999 show no significant variation over the 12 month period. The molar composition of the gas is similar to other basaltic arc volcanoes in Central America. Emission rates of SO2 from the summit crater, determined by correlation spectroscopy, averaged 21 kg s–1 during the study periods, indicating CO2, H2O, HCl, and HF emission rates of 32–36, 380–420, 7.0–7.8, and 0.86–0.95 kg s–1, respectively. At these rates it takes only a few years to emit the equivalent volatiles associated with Masaya's prehistoric Plinian eruptions.

and this one:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... e0dd2fd9d3

[RF]

I presume the carbon vented from volcanoes, together with all the other ejecta, would be sourced ultimately from the Earth's mantle.

The ''snowball Earth'' theory as I say is not universally accepted. The preamble to the whole planet being covered by ice sheet is a normal ice age coupled with a lowering of solar activity such that temperatures ratchet downwards until the whole planet freezes up. Apparently this happens when the existing CO2 content of the atmosphere has been ''washed'' into the ground to such an extent that the remaining solar insolation cannot be retained as warmth in the atmosphere: as the albedo increases from the ice cover temperatures plummet further. Presumably a relative quiet period in volcanic activity also occurs.

Supervolcanic eruption activity (not normal volcanic eruptions, which would be wholly insufficient) would be rquired to penetrate through the thick ice sheet and blast CO2 into the atmosphere, so that a warming process can start.

This is only a theory, there is some geological evidence to support it, I am inclined to think that it could have happened.

[Dave Saxton]

Do major volcanic eruptions emit any significant Co2? According to my good friend (Geology PHD) they certainly do! I don't recall all the scientific notation, but he layed it out for me once. Indeed as he put it, Mount St. Helens emitted more co2 than all of the internal combustion engines since the beginning of the industrial revolution combined-all of them!. I heard a geologist being interveiwed on the radio recently and he pointed out that the recent volcano event in Iceland emitted more co2 in few hours than all the automobiles combined since the invention of the automobile.

[RF]

Dave, none of these facts have been reported anywhere in the British media. Indeed it has actually been intimated that the CO2 emissions ''saved'' by the ban on aircraft flights exceeded the CO2 emissions of the Icelandic eruption, so the eruption was a ''green'' event.

[Dave Saxton]

These facts are quite an Inconvienent Truth for the advancement of the man made climate change agenda arn't they? It shows the complicity of the main stream media, and the faulty science that surrounds this so called crisis. Considering the comparitive scales it means that all the marxist/scocialist solutions can make no difference at all-at least in terms of total co2 emissions and their effect on climate change. It reveals the true motives of the agenda.

[lwd]

Indeed I was surprised to find how difficult it was to even find a scientific report on the amount of CO2 ejected by volcanoes. Once I finally found one that addressed the topic it was pretty clear that they do indeed vent a lot of CO2 contrary to my initial impression.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Indeed I was surprised to find how difficult it was to even find a scientific report on the amount of CO2 ejected by volcanoes. Once I finally found one that addressed the topic it was pretty clear that they do indeed vent a lot of CO2 contrary to my initial impression.

In my country there are about 50 volcanoes. I live at 10 kilometers from an active crater. School boys here know from first grade that volcanoes eject CO2. Also in every documentary on the making of Planet Earth the fact of the CO2 ejected by volcanoes is basic for the evolution of our atmosphere. Maybe Obama, Al Gore and the rest of them commies didn't know about that, but is plain evident that is. In case of doubt, despite the lack of reports, we can walk to the edge of Poas Volcano and take a breath and see the results.

[RF]

The last post puts into perspective one of the policy objectives of Britain's new coaltition government. They aim to raise from 20% to 30% the reduction in Britain's CO2 emissions by 2018, and in so doing want to raise the EU wide figure to 30% as well. This will make (or at least is intended to make) the European Union the world's leading player in CO2 emission reductions, and hence improve its image and legitimacy. Not bad for a Prime Minister from a party that likes to pretend it is ''eurosceptic'' is it?

[Karl Heidenreich]

The last post puts into perspective one of the policy objectives of Britain's new coaltition government. They aim to raise from 20% to 30% the reduction in Britain's CO2 emissions by 2018, and in so doing want to raise the EU wide figure to 30% as well. This will make (or at least is intended to make) the European Union the world's leading player in CO2 emission reductions, and hence improve its image and legitimacy. Not bad for a Prime Minister from a party that likes to pretend it is ''eurosceptic'' is it?

Correct. You don't need to be a left wing fanatic to be friendly to the enviroment. As a matter of fact you can be friendly to the enviroment and don't swallow Al Gore's rethoric.

[alecsandros]

Although climate change is used as a political weapon, I think it is incorrect to place the entire emissions-reduction plan on leftist manipulation.
I think there have been significant changes in Earth's climate in the last 150 years (steady increases in global temperatures), and that they are suspiciously simultaneous with the steady industrialization of the globe.

The point of CO2 emissions is only one aspect of the problem. There are also sulphurous emissions (causing acid rain), heavy metals thrown into the air, the diminishing of the ozone layer, and so on.

And if "climate change" isn't sensible enough, look up "Romania - Copsa Mica" to see the effects of bad industrial management on people's lives...

[RF]

.
I think there have been significant changes in Earth's climate in the last 150 years (steady increases in global temperatures), and that they are suspiciously simultaneous with the steady industrialization of the globe.

This current ''warming up'' you refer to has been traced back to records to about 1600 AD, so the trend so far is one of 400+ years rather than 150, and of course its start predates the process of industrialisation. The period of the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries that preceeded it was a particulary cold period, with persistent very cold winters. To that extent it would seem that the current warming is the swing of a pendulum rather than a ratchet effect of ever rising temperatures.

The evidence of the Roman occupation here in Britain was that Britain then was in the midst of a very warm period, temperatures almost sub-tropical. A thousand years later, from the Norman Conquest onwards it was very much colder.

[RF]

The point of CO2 emissions is only one aspect of the problem... the diminishing of the ozone layer, and so on.

Scientists have reported that for the last ten years or so the hole in the Ozone layer over Antarctica has been getting smaller, it isapparently slowly repairing itself....

[alecsandros]

Scientists have reported that for the last ten years or so the hole in the Ozone layer over Antarctica has been getting smaller, it isapparently slowly repairing itself....

I don't think so... The gamma radiations emissions have increased steadily in the last 50 years or so, with explosive increases in the 90s and 2000s.
From my point of view, this can be explained either by considerable output from the Sun, or by a less capable "filter" in the atmosphere. Maybe the ozone layer isn't the only filter, but overall the "resistance" of the atmosphere has fallen...

[alecsandros]

This current ''warming up'' you refer to has been traced back to records to about 1600 AD, so the trend so far is one of 400+ years rather than 150, and of course its start predates the process of industrialisation. The period of the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries that preceeded it was a particulary cold period, with persistent very cold winters. To that extent it would seem that the current warming is the swing of a pendulum rather than a ratchet effect of ever rising temperatures.

The evidence of the Roman occupation here in Britain was that Britain then was in the midst of a very warm period, temperatures almost sub-tropical. A thousand years later, from the Norman Conquest onwards it was very much colder.

Yes, I know. The Vikings colonised Greenland in the Xth century because of the very warm climate; they started farming in several places of Greenland... So indeed, the climate was much more warm, at least in some places of the world. Most historians think the 16th century chilling of the climate brought the fall of the Viking settlement there...

However, if I remember correctly, the warming of the weather is following the rate of industrialisation... The rise in the past 150 years has been much stronger than in the previous 200 years. With spikes in in global temperatures rise somewhat correlated to spikes in industrial output.

[RF]

Scientists have reported that for the last ten years or so the hole in the Ozone layer over Antarctica has been getting smaller, it isapparently slowly repairing itself....

I don't think so... The gamma radiations emissions have increased steadily in the last 50 years or so, with explosive increases in the 90s and 2000s.

This is what is being reported in the British media, including the BBC which heavily promotes the idea of ''climate change.'' The Ozone layer and its hole has literally disappeared off the green agenda completely in Britain.