|
Post by marchesarosa on May 29, 2011 16:45:04 GMT 1
Louise, the number of undersea volcanoes isn't even known! Some claim there are millions!
You attach far too much credence to statements of certainty about their CO2 emissions that cannot possibly be justified with the current state of knowledge. Get a grip.
|
|
|
Post by louise on May 29, 2011 16:53:34 GMT 1
Louise, the number of undersea volcanoes isn't even known! Some claim millions! You attach far too much credence to statements of certainty that cannot possibly be justified with the current state of knowledge. But the tonnage of coal, oil and gas burnt by man is known as is the amount of concrete produced and the amount of rain forest destroyed, etc (to significant orders of magnitude anyway). When compared to the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, one can make some deductions. Extrapolation my dear. If there really were millions of volcanoes under the sea, all of them emitting CO2 then the atmospheric CO2 concentration would be much much higher.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on May 29, 2011 17:10:26 GMT 1
I think you have not really thought out that statement.
What I was suggesting is that if a greater proportion of the atmospheric CO2 comes from vulcanism, a smaller proportion (i.e. parts per billion) is anthropogenic.
You assume the behaviour of all the sinks are known. You assume all the sources are known and quantified. They are not. Change one and you change the others and your hypothesis should also change.
This is simple stuff.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 1, 2011 10:57:16 GMT 1
I have searched the internet to find clarification of the repeated references above to the US Geological Survey estimates of undersea volcanic sources of CO2. In fact the USGS undertakes no independent estimates of its own on this source. They merely quote the estimates of TM Gerlach 1991. Googling "undersea volcanic CO2" just brings you back to the same endlessly retailed references to the US Geological survey quoted by both STA and Louise. Here is how a Consulting Geologist geologist-1011.mobi/ describes Gerlach's research: About persistant submarine volcanoes, Gerlach (1991, §3, ¶1) asserts "There are no estimates for off-ridge volcanos". In fact, Gerlach (1991, §6, ¶5) had sufficient foresight to caution his readers as follows:
"The adequacy of seafloor spreading rates as a predictor of mid-plate volcano degassing rates is less clear, and it is possible that CO2 degassing at mid-plate volcanos is outside the conceptual framework of the current carbon cycle models. The high CO2 degassing rates for Mount Etna underscore the need to ensure that mid-plate volcano degassing is satisfactorily represented in models of the carbon geochemical cycle."
Although Gerlach's foresight may seem prophetic, the large number of active seamounts had already been documented (Batiza, 1982), and even this figure was later found to be somewhat conservative with the latest estimate of submarine volcanoes standing at more than three million (Hillier & Watts, 2007 - See carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net for details). Moreover, it has been known for more than seven years now that the global volcanic carbon dioxide emission figures put forward by the USGS are long out of date and quite clearly wrong, as the figures of Morner & Etiope (2002) show.The full text of Gerlach's study can be found here gerlach1991.geologist-1011.mobi/Because I was myself unaware of any current estimates of CO2 outgassing for what are NOW known to be the MILLIONS of undersea volcanoes and vents I was intuitively suspicious of STA's claims about the relative proportions of volcanic CO2 in comparison with fossil fuel emitted CO2. That is why I asked - do you believe them? I didn't. And I was right not to because, as I guessed, NO such contemporary estimates exist. So those of you who fondly believe that ALL that it is necessary to know about volcanic undersea sources of CO2 is already known please have a rethink and be a little more modest in your claims. We do not have anywhere near a comprehensive picture of all the sources or sinks of CO2 and until we do we are ill-advised to make swingeing claims or to base important policy decisions upon these claims. This is the only "precautionary principle" worth considering at this stage of our understanding.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 1, 2011 14:02:13 GMT 1
So despite M's many claims about proper argument from reliable sources, when pushed we just get -- maybe these ESTIMATES (as if estimates were a bad word rather than what you actually have to do in science) are out by 10% (whoops, that should have been 1000%, or 10,000% or whatever ludicrous number we want to put here.....)............
And this is supposed to be REASONED argument? Query M on her sources or the reasoning behind them (like the chiefio post on the average of a set of temperatures not being measured in the same units as the original temperatures), and she just refuses to play.
Why didn't you? You didn't OFFER any REASONS why you didn't believe them, it didn't look like anything other than your usual -- if it doesn't support my position, I don't believe it.
Hardly reasoned argument.
Your claims are also rather out of date. If you look at USGS in detail, you find:
We have our consulting geologist with only a BSc in the subject, NOT the sort of person I'd rely on when it comes to cutting-edge research............
As regards submarine volcanoes, what hasn't been stressed yet is that although they belch out a load of CO2 (millions of tonnes), we have a NET sink due to new oceanic crust. And it all goes around and around when we consider plate tectonics and subduction zones.
Again compared to the BILLIONS of tonnes of human-produced CO2.
Even with lithospheric degassing as considered by Morner and Etiope (Carbon degassing from the lithosphere, Global and Planetary Change Volume 33, Issues 1-2, June 2002, Pages 185-203), we still get figures of more than 2% of the anthropogenic sources, which will effect sensitive models, but still ONLY A FEW PERCENT.
Its millions versus billions, frankly, and you can't convert one to the other by hoping that our estimates are so wrong, that the few percent figure will instead swamp the AGW figure.
And helps if you know a bit about plate tectonics before you start...................
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 1, 2011 14:47:03 GMT 1
Here's another paper: Hards, V.L. (2005) Volcanic contributions to the global carbon cycle. British Geological Survey Occasional Publication No 10, 26pp. Which you can find here: www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=432As regards submarine volcanism, almost entirely (>90%) at mid-ocean ridges, and balanced by hydrothermal alteration of newly formed ocean floor lavas. Which is why we can rule MOR volcanism out when comes to atmospheric CO2 levels. Even so, figures for MOR still less than a 100 million tonnes a year. And given that the mid-ocean ridges are the biggest mountain range system on the planet............. But we shouldn't be surprised if M takes her 'facts' from Pilmer, since she seems to have adopted his style of (non)-debate as well: www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-versus-george-monbiot
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 1, 2011 15:40:12 GMT 1
I wasn't aware I was taking facts from Plimer, STA. I have never come cross his work. He's a Professor with a PhD in Geology, isn't he? But I have certainly come across Geo Monbiot. He's that alarmist journalist and enviro-activist isn't he with a degree in .. Zoology?
My views on the matter of CO2 outgassing from undersea volcanoes and ocean heat from the same source are ALL MY OWN. I have tried over the years to find substantive information on these but have been unable to find anything that varied very much from assertion, speculation and estimation.. Hardly surprising given the location of these volcanoes and vents, is it? But I'm not trying to make a silk purse out a pig's ear, that's your vocation.
Since we cannot even properly measure the temperature round the world how on earth can we measure what is happening on the ocean floor to the degree of accuracy required to prop up the Catastrophic anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis?
The exact, or even approximate proportions of all the various sources and sinks of CO2 are simply not known. They are ENTIRELY speculative - apart from the very rough estimates of fossil fuel CO2 emissions based on estimates of fuel consumption. Until they are known more ccurately your assertions about the priority that should be accorded to fossil fuel emissions remains moot.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 1, 2011 16:05:16 GMT 1
Actually, she seems to be taking it from this Timothy Casey guy. Okay, he is a geologist, but with only a BSc to his name, 4th author on one referred journal paper, and author of a non-referred article:
Volcanic Carbon Dioxide: Guesswork, Politics and Intemperate Volcanoes", Australian Institute of Geoscience News, No. 100, pp. 8-17,
hardly an exciting CV.
And what else do we find? Well, his BSc in geology doesn't stop him from 'having a go' elsewhere! Indeed, physics isn't beyind him, or so he thinks.
We have this delightful article which claims that physicsts can't do physics, and the greenhouse effect is bunkum.................
The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect".
What do we get at the start of this article? Frankly, a whole load of guff confusing the use of impermeable and absorption, going back to Fourier (1882) and Arrhenius, and wittering on about the definition of the 'greenhouse effect' on the OED.
Do we care? Not really! What we do care about is basic physics, and according to basic physics, the 'greenhouse effect' is easy-peasy.
In fact, his supposed explanation is total nonsense. Because all that is going on is that the EQiULIBRIUM temperature of a radiating, illuminated body like the earth depends on what is between the earth and the cold of empty space. Forget about mistaken pictures of radiation being bounced back and heating the earth again -- it;s the ole confusion, yet again, over NET heat flow, and how you compute the NET effect (hence equilibrium temperature), by having this mythical 'back radiation' that so many try to object to. Just tells me they haven't understood the process by which the equilibrium temperature is computed.
So, we have someone with a simple degree in geology, who thinks he can do basic physics better than the physicists, and research geology better than vulcanologists. He can't.
And then M who is willing (or so it seems) to believe every word these self-styled experts care to spout, as long as it agrees with what was already her stated position.........................
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 1, 2011 16:31:10 GMT 1
Just to illustrate the confusion, lets have a 1D example (because I can draw it on here!)
We have a source of illumination (the sun). Call it S.
We have the thing being illuminated (the earth). We have empty space (call it 0 for empty, null, or 0Kelvin for cold space).
Situation 1:
S...................E....................0
So, we have heat from sun absorbed by the earth, earth then radiates both back towards the sun, and towards deep space. The amount that earth radiates depends on its temperature (what we want to find). To find it, we have to balance net heat flow.
From sun -> call it W.
From earth <- W/2 to the left, W/2 -> to the right
And nowt back from cold space (its COLD okay).
Hence Earth is at a temperature so that it emits W/2, which is less than W, hence we can see straight off that equilibrium temperature of the earth is LESS than of the 1D sun (phew!).
How much less depends on us knowing exact relation between temperature and emitted radiation. but either way, we have W/2 net heat flow from sun to earth, and net heat flow of W/2 from earth to cold space.
Now situation 2. Let's take result we already have, and add a further body, but leave heat flow as in first question for the moment.
S................E............C....................0
If we suddenly stuck C in there, we would have W/2 heat flux from earth intercepted by C. Hence C will start to heat up (it is being illuminated by the earth, in effect), and then it will radiate as well. Except SOME of the radiated heat goes back towards earth. Which is the picture that causes confusion to some, except remember we are talking about a NON-equilibrium situation here!
Lets compute instead new equilibrium. We now have to compute equilibrium temps for earth and for C.
W -> from sun to earth
W1 <- from earth to sun, and -> W1 from earth to C
W2 <- from C to earth, and -> W2 from C to cold space.
For earth in equilibrium: W + W2 = 2W1
For C in equilibrium: W1 = 2W2
Hence we can see straight off that W2 = 0.5W1 (C only gets 'heated' by radiation from the earth -- except it isn't heated in non-equilibrium sense, just that is only incoming radiation it receives).
Hence W = 1.5W1
Compare with first case, where earth radiated W/2 in each direction, and we can see straight away that W1 is GREATER than W/2. Hence (since W1 is determined by the temperature of the earth), we can see that the earth equilibrium temperature is HIGHER in this second case, simple by interposing another body between itself and cold space.
THAT is the greenhouse effect, in effect. Anyone who wants to dispute it obviously hasn't understood even the simplest thermal physics (or net heat flow, which was always from sun to earth (to C) to cold space).
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 1, 2011 16:44:41 GMT 1
Yes, I quoted Timothy Casey. His was the only discussion of CO2 from undersea vulcanism I came across apart from the US Geological survey claim. There were millions of references to THAT which is I guess why STA and Louise stopped looking when they met with that particular source of opinion!
One needs a little grist, a little critical evaluation of the estimates, unless one is going to merely lie down under the weight of repetitive assertion based on statistical assumptions rather than on any actual measurement.
But as I said. I'm not surprised there isn't much of a debate about undersea vulcanism going on. It's not exactly an easy area to investigate EMPIRICALLY, is it?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 1, 2011 17:40:10 GMT 1
I have just read Tim Casey’s review of the literature about volcanic Carbon Dioxide, revised May 2010. carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/ It is interesting. His opinion is that the proportion of volcanic Co2 is MUCH higher than the tiny fraction of the total claimed by STA. Who REALLY knows the answer? More research obviously required. Send me some money!
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 1, 2011 17:57:33 GMT 1
Except you give no critical evaluation of the claims that this geologist makes! Or understanding of the relevant geology and tectonic processes..................
There MAY be lots of undersea volcanoes that we didn't know about before. Should we expect it to make much difference?
According to USGS:
Interesting how Timothy Caseys online survey of the literature (NOT peer-reviewed, which means no one has CHECKED his claims) is then quoted as a new study by a geology researcher. Online witterings by an amateur would be a better assessment.....................
Should we believe what this chap has to say anyway? Given the hash he made of the physics of the greenhouse effect, I'm afraid I'd have to label him as unreliable. In fact, he falls on several counts:
Lack of relevant experience (he doesn't have a research degree)
Lack of relevant experience (he doesn't have a record of research at any reputable research institution).
Lack of proper publications (ANY idiot can cobble together unreviewed nonsense on the web).
Lack of scientific reasoning skills -- his supposed refutation of the greenhouse effect did the damage there.
Mere speculation? Who is guilty of more speculation here? We have proper series of research papers by people who know what they are talking about, knocking the estimates of volcanic CO2 backwards and forwards over the years. Compared to one internet idiot who saysm, in effect -- their estimates are lousy (not that he considers them all, just the oldest papers, not the latest research), therev MAY be loads of submarine volcanoes, hence that MAY explain CO2 levels.
No assessment of what we might expect to see as regards oceanic CO2 levels versus atmospheric if there actually WERE a major submarine source of CO2. (Ditto, by the way, if submarine volcanbism were a significant source of heating).
There is, just not along the maybe it causes CO2 rises lines, because no one actually in the business thinks that is viable. There is plenty of work on effects on sea-life living near vents etc, and how that life copes with extreme environments/extreme acidification.
Also, work on effects of volcanism on paleoclimate:
So, there IS plenty of work out there, just none that says what you would like, that it is going on NOW, and explains current increased CO2 levels.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jun 1, 2011 18:01:23 GMT 1
"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." What we don't know... "To date, we have explored less than five percent of the ocean" oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/exploration.html so we know what we don't know = 95% Seamounts. The Encyclopaedia of Earth www.eoearth.org/article/Seamount" The online database SeamountsOnline estimates that less than 400 seamounts have been sampled, and of these less than 100 have been sampled in any detail. A key aim of marine scientists is to increase the number of seamounts that have been sampled, and to ensure that they are sampled in sufficient detail to enable meaningful conclusions to be drawn " seamounts.sdsc.edu/ good illustration Google map of known seamounts Now somebody will say that 'they know all the seamounts from satellite photography' I saw that in passing, but also saw this on Wiki.. The Los Angeles-class fast-attack submarine USS San Francisco (SSN 711) in dry dock " Some seamounts have not been mapped and thus pose a navigational danger. For instance, Muirfield Seamount is named after the ship that hit it in 1973.[30] More recently, the submarine USS San Francisco ran into an uncharted seamount in 2005 at a speed of 35 knots (40.3 mph; 64.8 km/h), sustaining serious damage and killing one seaman. " en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seamount#DangersAsphalt Volcanoes " An asphalt volcano is a rare type of submarine volcano (seamount) first discovered in 2003. Several examples have been found: first, along the coasts of America and Mexico, and, recently, all over the world; a few are still active.[1] Resembling seamounts in structure, they are made entirely of asphalt, and form when natural oil seeps up from the Earth's crust underwater. " 'First discovered in 2003' en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphalt_volcanoMud Volcanoes Published on 6 April 2009, 10:38 " Seafloor mud volcanoes and brine pools reveal new information on their microbial processes; could help explain related geology a " " Even less known are undersea mud volcanoes, " insciences.org/article.php?article_id=4123en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mud_volcano" A mud volcano may be the result of a piercement structure created by a pressurized mud diapir which breaches the Earth's surface or ocean bottom. Their temperatures may be as low as the freezing point of the ejected materials, particularly when venting is associated with the creation of hydrocarbon clathrate hydrate deposits. Mud volcanoes are often associated with petroleum deposits and tectonic subduction zones and orogenic belts; hydrocarbon gases are often erupted. They are also often associated with lava volcanoes; in the case of such close proximity, mud volcanoes emit incombustible gases including helium, whereas lone mud volcanoes are more likely to emit methane. Approximately 1,100 mud volcanoes have been identified on land and in shallow water. It has been estimated that well over 10,000 may exist on continental slopes and abyssal plains. " " Undersea Volcanic Rocks May Offer Vast Repository for Greenhouse Gas " www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2204That's some of the known unknowns How about the unknown unknowns.......? Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 1, 2011 19:08:06 GMT 1
I am quite amazed, stu, at the way some people who call themselves scientists are totally lacking in curiosity about CERTAIN things and MOREOVER want to stamp on anyone else who expresses curiosity about them - or even a little well-grounded incredulity.
She's a card, isn't she!
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jun 1, 2011 19:18:06 GMT 1
M, there is plenty out there -- you just need to look at the WIDER picture.
So far, the 'argument' seems to be -- there MAY be lots of submarine volcanoes we don't know about, which MAY explain CO2 levels (if we really believe they have increased).
Which is a contest between a known (levels of CO2 from fossil fuels, because we know quite a bit about how much fossil fuels we burn every year), and a HOPE. It really isn't that much of a contest, to be frank. Because to even take it seriously, you'd have to argue as to WHY all that fossil fuel which has been burnt HASN'T caused CO2 levels to increase, or that it is swamped by volcanic effects. Then you'd have the weird correlation between volcanic activity and human fossil fuel use, whcih seems a bit odd......................
The point being, there ARE links between volcanism and climate, but the effects are for the big, subaerial volcanic events (like deccan traps etc).
This submarine volcano hypothesis isn't even really that -- it's just the same ole argument over again, that there are MANY things we don't know, hence why shouldn't one of those be a better explanation for CO2 levels that the one we don't like? We have stuff we do know, and evidence we already we already have about the link between human activity and CO2 levels, compared to what? Absence of evidence means we can put anything we like in the gap, as a possible, but that isn't how science works!
So, yes, from an academic point of view, it would be nice to know more about sea-floor volcanism, but as a feasible explanation for CO2 increases? It's daft, at best, at worst unscientific rubbish. Might as well blame it on UFOs...........
I'm NOT saying that volcanoes and volcanic processes can't contribute significantly to climate change -- they have in the past, that is totally clear. That they're doing it now (despite best estimates and measurements of actual emissions not being anywhere near the required figures), and somehow magically doing it in step with human-based emissions, and in a way that we can't see...........Its a hope based on no data, as valid as UFOs.
You not know about Plimer? I find that hard to believe, given that even a quick google about volcanism and CO2 yields links to him....................
|
|