Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.
Article Source: Guardian UnlimitedIceland volcano gives warming world chance to debunk climate sceptic mythsClimate sceptics' favourite theory that volcanoes produce more CO2 than human activity has exploded in their faces with Eyjafjallajokull eruption
John Cook of the increasingly popular Skeptical Science website currently lists the "volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans" viewpoint as number 54 on his ever-growing list - 107, to date - of debunked sceptic arguments.
US Geological Survey (USGS) states: "Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes."
the "130 times" figure on the USGS website is an estimate that includes all volcanoes – submarine as well as subaerial
#1 - Wed Apr 21, 2010 10:38 AM EDTthe "130 times" figure on the USGS website is an estimate that includes all volcanoes – submarine as well as subaerial
Of course its an estimate because there is no way in the world they can even guesstimate how much CO2 is being emitted yearly by the estimated 9,000+ active volcanoes and the untold numbers of Black Smokers.
And besides, their "Human activities release" is merely an estimate also.
And besides besides that, their "Human activities release" estimate doesn't jive with the Mona Loa Record.
#2 - Wed Apr 21, 2010 12:37 PM EDTActually
Here is the correct information. The guardian left off a decimal point in their original article.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1852153/volcano_co2_output_could_be_150300000_tons_daily/
#3 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:31 AM EDTIceland's Eyjafjoell volcano is emitting between 150,000 and 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) per day,
Mankinds estimated contributions in 2005 was in excess of 36 billion tonnes,that's close to 99,000,000 tonnes per day.I have yet to find anything good about that,especially when you add the mercury,arsenic,beryllium,cadmium,chromium,nickel aamong other things.
I have yet to find anything good about that
Really?
Increased plant productivity is not good?
I have yet to find anything good about that
Really?
When you add the mercury,arsenic,beryllium,cadmium,chromium,nickel among other things?The plant productivity won't last unless all nutrients increase.Water is good too,but too much and the plants will rot.
When you add the mercury,arsenic,beryllium,cadmium,chromium,nickel among other things?The plant productivity won't last unless all nutrients increase.Water is good too,but too much and the plants will rot.
That is not what I was commenting on. You said that you could not find ANYTHING good about additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
I showed you something, something tangible that has had a major impact on farm productivity around the world in the last 30 years.
You turn around and list all the bad, most of which is irrelevant.
SG,I realise CO2 is a natural part of things,but manmade CO2 is not a part of the natural cycle.Many naturally occurring things are great for the environment,when introduced naturally and not by man.Many of the fertilizers today are great for plant growth,but detrimental to the environment in larger amounts than found in nature.Not to mention the effect the CO2 is having on the oceans.Can the oceans continue to absorb all the CO2 and if they can,will marine life survive the changes?Do you honestly feel that the mercury contamination from coal pollution is irrelevant?
but manmade CO2 is not a part of the natural cycle.
Of course it is because WE are part of nature. Read up sometimes on how the rise in angiosperms completely modified the planet.
This attempt to separate humanity from nature is based in an odd form of self loathing.
You talk about these metallic contaminations but forget that for over 100 MILLION years a natural nuclear reactor ran in what is now Southern Africa, spewing radiation across great swaths of the planet.
You talk about pollution but forget about the Deccan traps, a volcanic explosion that lasted for ten MILLION years. There are the Siberian traps as well.
Get over this humans are evil crap.
Dodged the ocean issue and effectively defended mankind.Screw the planet, man is part of nature,so reguardless of what mankind does,nuclear,pollution,geoengineering,genocide,it all is just nature.I will rest better now,knowing the wars, destruction and pollution are all just a part of nature.
Dodged the ocean issue and effectively defended mankind.Screw the planet, man is part of nature,so reguardless of what mankind
I'll take on the ocean issue.
What would you like to debate about it?
Dodged the ocean issue and effectively defended mankind.Screw the planet, man is part of nature,so reguardless of what mankind does,nuclear,pollution,geoengineering,genocide,it all is just nature.I will rest better now,knowing the wars, destruction and pollution are all just a part of nature.
What we are doing is no different than what angiosperms did when they took over the biosphere.
What we are doing is no different than what angiosperms did when they took over the biosphere
That's a bit of a stretch,comparing man to the evolution of flowering plants.
That's a bit of a stretch,comparing man to the evolution of flowering plants.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2009/12/08-04.html
Nope
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/21/AR2010042104718.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Okay, let's say there are 169 active volcanoes every year and they all emit about the same levels of carbon dioxide. So, that means every year they emit between 25,350,000 and 50,700,000 tons of carbon dioxide a day and 9,259,087,500 and 18,518,175,000 tons every year. That's quite interesting, considering that instruments only measure a portion of carbon dioxide escaping the volcanoes.
#4 - Thu Apr 22, 2010 12:16 PM EDTAs a long-time AGW denier, I don't see the point in arguments about things that are so highly speculative. The main thing that volcanoes spew out is dust. Dust on snow or ice tends to greatly facilitate solar melting of same.
I am fond of opining that the real reason that the summer ice meltback in the Arctic is more severe due north of eastern Siberia and Alaska is that dust from Chinese industrial pollution and Mongolian over-grazing alights on the ice and greatly hastens solar melting when the sun is in the sky 23 hrs per day.
I also like to contend that the drought in NE China and Mongolia is a consequence of cooling, not warming. Cool air holds less moisture, which is why in Antarctica it doesn't snow much in most places.
#5 - Fri Apr 23, 2010 10:20 AM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
