Volcanoes are an important part of the earth's natural cylce of regulating CO2 in the atmosphere. It's helpful to remember that the carbon that is in the atmosphere is really the carbon that is going back and forth between the atmosphere, the land, and the ocean all the time. And that it is carbon that goes to or comes from rock (or under rock) that really changes concentrations over time.

The earth's natural regulation of CO2 goes like this. CO2 goes to rock by a chemical reaction with water that forms calcium carbonate, better known as limestone, marble and chalk. Yup, chalk. CO2 gets out of rock into the air by our friend the volcano, which "burps" it up. Since the reaction that forms calcium carbonate speeds up when it's warmer, (that is, takes CO2 out of the atmosphere faster when it starts getting hotter) this acts as the earth's "thermostat." Pretty neat, huh?

This is an oversimplified view, but there are two points to be made...

1) Volcanoes are cool.

2) Fossil fuel emmissions are overwhelming this natural system.

As you correctly point out, our fossil fuel emissions are easily 100 greater than all the volcanoes in the world. That is, volcanoes contribution to global warming is now a moot point.

Reply

"Normally we discourge our readers from asking questions, but we will indulge you just this once ..."

First of all, use a spell check before you publish something!!! Secondly, you DISCOURAGE readers from asking questions?!? This is precisely why I haven't bought into your company. I think TerraPass is a great idea, but after perusing your site I was left with lots of questions as to how you're actually spending the money you make. Seems to me you're just using people's guilt about burning gas to make $$. If you're doing such great things why don't you make your Annual Report public?

Please remove me from your mailing list.

-Lisa

PS: Regarding the other nugget of insight in your blog about the proper use of grammar: it sounds to me like you've gone to much trouble to convince yourself you can malign the English language with no dire consequences. Another reason I won't support your company.

Reply

We can't exactly blow up volcanoes to fix pollution, and we can't exactly harness the power of the tides without altering them. We can't pull power from wind without changing how hard it is blowing. You simply can't just create energy.

Reply

Quick question on fossil fuels not being part of the "natural CO2 cycle". Where exactly did the CO2 released when fossil fuels are burned come from in the first place?

Reply

Volcanoes and man made pollution as well as nature with its many fires universally contribute to the release of CO2 which has now become the topic of the day. For, with it the public is warned mans' actions are heating up the earth to fore doomed destruction of mankind.

Is not the release of methane gas, 21 times heavier than CO2, a matter that would ultimately cause more harm with blowing the ozone open and you know what that would due to heating the planet.

Let's go back many years to the days of Charles Hapgood and his communications with Albert Einstein. This can be read in "PATH OF THE POLE" by C. Hapgood.
In that book you will learn that earth has gone through many cyles of heat/ice etc over many millenia. In consert with this it is to be noted that the magnetic poles of the earth had shifted drastically and even reversed on a couple of occassions.

During the reversal of magnetic poles it is my hypothesiss that the earth flipped bringing on catastrophic distortion of the earth's mantle and the release of untold gases from numerous volcanic eruptions. These blankeed the earth preventing solar rays form penetrating and warming of the planet and bringing on an ice age in large localized areas. then animal and plant life awated the dissipation of the cloud cover and over time melting of the ice caps here and there and plant and animal life started over ever so slowly. This has been cyclic over millions and millions of years and is not a new pehnomenon.

IF YOU WILL OBTAIN A COPY OF "THE MAYAN PROPHECIES" YOU WILL LEARN MORE. ALSO "THE ORION PROPHECIES' BY GERYL ET AL IS AN EXPANSION OF THE MAYAN ETC.

HANK SNYDER

PLEASE SEND THE FOREGOING BACK TO ME IN AN EMAIL AS I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT FOR MY RECORDS.

THANKS HANK

Reply

"volcanoes contribution to global warming is now a moot point"

Sorry, but you are flat out wrong. It is true that humans dump much more co2 into the air than volcanos. And if co2 was the only greenhouse gas, your conclusion would be correct. However you forgot about the half a dozen or so other biggies. If you inlcude sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen chloride (HCl), and hydrogen fluoride (HF), volcanos contribute much more to global warming than humans. And don't forget the cows.
a single cow produces 400 liters of methane per day (that's the low estimate, some say as high as 600)

there are an estimated 1.3 billion cattle world wide, you do the math

Methane is capable of trapping 25 times more heat than CO2, and is expected to cause between 15 and 17% of the global warming over the next 50 years

nearly 50% of methane comes from agriculture

additionally, burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide,

Australia's 140 million sheep and cattle are estimated to produce one seventh of the nation's total greenhouse gas emissions

Livestock also produces more than 100 other polluting gases, including more than two-thirds of the world's emissions of ammonia, one of the main causes of acid rain.

A Boeing-747 can burn over 200 tons of fuel in one flight. Plus, the emissions are at altitude making it worse.

Meanwhile, I'm supposed to give up my SUV and not drive one in 5? Please.

Reply

Hi,

I came across your comments on volcanoes while doing some research. While you are correct that all of the "inactive" volcanoes" currently do not put out much in the way of CO2 and other gases. You forget that volcanoes are cataclysmic in nature and they tend to happen in a short period of time. The CO2 and other gases also tend to also be expelled in rapid fashion along with ash and other nasty stuff. So taking readings when a volcano is not active might not represent 3% of the total CO2?

Also, I think that everyone should take a geology course at some point in their life so that they realize that the earth has been heating up and cooling off on a regular basis for the past 4.5 billion years. Global sea level curves record rises and falls in sea levels for hundreds of millions of years. These rises and falls in sea level are directly related to warming and cooling events in our planets history. These cycles of heating and cooling were going on long before man could contribute to the warming and cooling cycles.

Carbon dioxide levels of the Late Precambrian (600 MYBP) are estimated to be 18 times present concentration and the Cretaceous (63 MYBP) concentration was 3 to 4 times present concentration. Low estimates during glaciation are around 170 PPM. Recent research has demonstrated that there is historically up to a 400-year lag between temperature changes and consequent carbon dioxide concentration changes (Fischer, et al, 1999). That hypothesis requires climate drivers other than carbon dioxide.(after Lee Gerhard, Kansas Geological Survey).

Personally, I think that we are contributing in some degree to global warming, but it may be insignificant to the cycles of global warming that were already in place before man learned to use fire? I am not so concerned about the global warming event we are currently experiencing as I am about the global cooling event that will come afterwards.

Dr. Weldon Beauchamp
University of Texas at Dallas

Reply

it wouls be helpful if you could also putsome information concerning the actual pollution that volcanoes produce, like the amount of sulfur dioxide andd other measurements of how much of what gets put into the atmosphere. and it also a natural cycle, global warming that is, and there are also many other factors that affect the earths climate.

P.S. what about the other 92% of greenhouse emissions

Reply

it would be helpful if you could also putsome information concerning the actual pollution that volcanoes produce, like the amount of sulfur dioxide andd other measurements of how much of what gets put into the atmosphere. and it also a natural cycle, global warming that is, and there are also many other factors that affect the earths climate.

P.S. what about the other 92% of greenhouse emissions

Reply

Man is most likely having an effect on global warming. The degree to which he is doing this is unproven.

Volcanos cause global cooling and the last 100 years have been relatively benign in terms of volcanic activity - interesting thought is it not ?

The real problem is, no matter what the cause, how mankind can adapt and survive in the changing world. It makes good sense to burn hydrocarbons as efficiently as we can but we will only be around in the next millenium if we stop breeding to excess. We all want to get richer, we all want to live, consume and make merry the thing is there are just too many of us. Technology will help but the only long term certain solution is for mankind to limit his expansion. Population has tripled in about 50 years .. think about the grains of rice on the chessboard. We are finished if we don't control our birthrate.

Reply

Of course there is local pollution. Global pollution, what does that mean? Rising sea levels and temperatures have already been explained by Dr. Weldon Beauchamp. About CO2. It comes from all burning. The hydrocarbons all come from CO2. Is that a cycle or not? It may be a long one, but sure it is. So where did all the CO2 come from that we now produce by burning the fossil fuels, wood, etc? From the aliens, or were one day in the long past there grand reserves of CO2 ? The hype about global warming is a good earner for those that make the case and a living of it, more or less fooling everyone. Should we cut all the wood? No of course not. Should we burn as much as we can? No of course not. Should we locally pollute as much as we can? No of course not. If only for our children. However should we make good use of natural resources? Yes of course, why not? Check it out - who are the higher carbon footprint individuals? Many of them among those who advocate to protect, meantime travelling to Rio, Kyoto, to rallies, etc etc and en passant meeting in conferences - by thousands and telling the rest of the world to reduce. Sad Sad Sad.

Reply

"CO2 released every year by volcanoes at about 150-200 million tons"

I came across an AGU JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 107, NO. B9, 2189 finding stating that Kilauea released an estimated 8500 metric tons every day over a four year study period. What accounts for this large difference?

Reply

My specialty is the mind, psychological motivation and personality types, especially what motivates a person to hold the views they do, or take the actions they do (as use in Forensics). Humans are pretty ‘predictable’ in most cases in that they ‘easily’ pick up an strongly hold biases’ and on the other hand very reluctantly and rarely abandon them for real truth.

In areas like ‘global warming’; or ‘politics’ (right now global warming is extremely political); or evolution vs. Intelligence design; or the proper ideology: socialism vs. free enterprise systems to run the world (political again); or race issues; or music preferences, country vs. rock; or religion; on abortion is about choice vs. those who feel abortion is murder; etc, etc, etc….you rarely get real, objective views presented…very rarely.

We, as scientist, tend to ignore data that doesn't fit our bias. Often it’s not a conscious omission; it’s just or particular bias filters won’t allow us to see it. More accurately, we see but it doesn’t register or is so instantly countered in our subconscious we don’t file it in a slot to be considered. Or we hear but the brain twist what’s said so quickly we don’t notice it. Most authors experience this. The write something and their fans tell them what they said; which is often 180 degrees from what the author meant.

I submit there's a very huge factors you've neglected in your calculations...you’ve probably neglected it because it’s been neglected by others… Example: sub ocean venting of methane...the 'leakage' factor of green house gasses is very, very hard to accurately calculate but has been estimated to be 10 to 100 times maybe the amount from active volcanoes...including 'undersea' volcanoes...Also, volcanic activity doubled in the 1950’s especially in Indonesia. Is this data important? Is it scientific? Of course it is. Example On the other side: Oil companies unconsciously disregarding significant Co2 data out of Finland and not thoroughly checking it out.

So what we get is bias. Who’s right? Probably neither side, except in their own eyes of course. Remember even Pow Pot thought he was “helping” the people of Cambodia.

We, as scientist, tend to ignore data that doesn't fit our 'religious' bias (be it Christianity or Atheism or 'greenhouse' certainty or ‘democrat’ of ‘republican’ or ‘Islam’ or whatever)...that's the problem with this debate on the 'real cause' of global warming or anything else. We with our strong, generally indoctrinated biases, on whatever our side is, tend to ignore evidence on the other side. Thus it’s very hard for the normal person to get a clear picture of what’s actually going on. The bias pull/push for either side is so strong that it leaves only distortions in the wake. And lawyers love to mix just enough truth with their twist to skew things. So you end up with a distorted mix that has a big often unrelated agenda behind it.

The normal path of mankind: What you get is someone (or ones) trying to get you to either agree with their bias or to shut up; even if you have to somehow suppress them. This starts with ‘marginalizing’ them with the intent on controlling them. The ultimate end: If they’re strong you get a war. If they’re weak you get slavery. In the middle you get ‘debates’ and arguments and chaos.

There’s a thing about marginalization: If circumstances cause it to be left unchecked the marginalization ends up a ends up intensifying into outright suppression of the opposing point of view… imprisoning them (after all their stuff is confiscated) and ultimately liquidating them. This can be seen trough the annals of history. Example: In prewar Germany it went from marginalization to liquidation in the space of only about 5-7 years.

This hasn’t ‘decreased’ over the last few thousand years; quite the contrary. Due to advances technology in the areas communication, transportation and weaponry and indoctrination (mind control) techniques it’s increased. In fact the last hundred years has seen more mass murder due to genocide than all of history before it (specifically: Mao…estimated 150,000,000 of his people were exterminated; Stalin…estimated that 50, 0000,000 to 80,000,0000…note: just these two world leaders ran the genocide numbers higher than all of recorded history prior to the 20th century …then throw in a few more; guys like Hitler 20,000,000; Pow Pot, the nice guys in Ruanda and North Korea, etc.

So I see this whole global warming thing, not as a science problem, but as an incendiary issue that disallows good science. I’m not all that sure whose numbers are accurate and whose aren’t. I’m not sure which facts are true and which have been twisted.

One thing I’m very sure about is, there have been some very strong distortions presented in the last ten years on both sides. Some have been proven to be outright lies motivated by solely money; some have simply been shoddy science driven by the need to be famous; some have been driven by ideologs. When I do “personality assessments” on some of the strongest proponents of global warming (both sides), it does not give me comfort. When I do assessments on some of the main leaders driving the sides, I also get some very disturbing results.

My conclusion is: We’ve got a bunch of ideologists trying to control the situation with their biases; and using obvious indoctrination as a main weapon. Couple that with very powerful monetary/political power issues and people biding for control over other people. It’s very tough to get a clear picture of what’s really causing climate change.

To me, this seems much more of a pressing problem than the issue of climate change we’re dealing with.

The reason I withhold my ‘agreement’ that carbon is the real cause is simply because control of carbon and carbon credits is the biggest political card. With this in ‘agreement’ you can easily gain control over huge masses of wealth and people; i.e. the energy producing and usage of a planet. If the cause was say volcano’s or solar cycles or natural cycles or shifts in the earth’s magnetic field or something else, how are you going to leverage that into political power? Not impossible but much more difficult.

Here’s some simple indirect proofs of my suspicion:

• One side claims a ‘consensus’ of opinion and the debate is ‘over’; the only action left is carbon credits….The other side has tens of thousands of PHd’s who disagree or doubt that carbon is the cause of Global warming. They’ve even got a petition circulating claiming a ‘biased’ press won’t cover their point of view.

• The carbon credit side marginalizes anyone who disagrees with carbon as the cause as being someone with their head in the sand who ‘doubts global warming’. Did you notice they ‘paint’ them as someone who doesn’t believe in global warming? This is a very typical ‘marginalization’ technique. Marginalization means bias; which equates to distortion; which equates to bad science.

• Professors who hold an opposing view can loose their tenure and even their position. That’s boarding on suppression: which equates to distortion; which equates to bad science

• PSE machines show Al Gore, many of the UN proponents, and University professors and ‘climate change experts’ have clearly been shown to engage outright lying to prove their points (facts, reports, figures, ‘the debate is settled’, etc, etc, etc). PSE machines show lying by many of the oil company’s spokesmen about the counter claims. This equates to lies; which equates to distortion; which equates to bad science

• Reverse Speech technology verifies the lying on both sides. . This equates to lies; which equates to distortion; which equates to bad science

• Actual data has been very skewed, ignored or simply made up. On both sides. . This equates to overt lies; which equates to distortion; which equates to bad science

• The Universities spokesmen have been shown to have hidden agenda’s and funding by very ideological groups (mainly left wing … hey! That’s to be expected on most university campuses. But these groups have picked up the banner because they’ve found it politically expedient as a tool/weapon to further their political end. . This equates to ideology above truth; which equates to distortion; which equates to bad science

The point is science on the issue has been hijacked by political and monetary factions. And the bulk of humanity (the sheep to be fleeced) is again the losers…
i.e. we can’t get good clean, unbiased scientific data or common sense solutions.

The Upcoming Weather Forecast:

This current storm cloud shows no change in its composition, though its intensity is rapidly increasing. This will again insure that mankind on all continents are in for a lengthy storm of being lied to, manipulated, indoctrinated and used. The long term forecast shows that: history once again repeats itself, with no real change for mankind in the foreseeable future.

Reply

Helicopters used to measure CO2 output from Active volcanoes can only measure the fringe output of CO2.
This is due to the High CO2 hot zones that are desirable to measure being turbulently unstable to fly in and so high in CO2 as to kill the engine if allowed to measure the core of the updraft.
Also, the FAA closes airspace around Active volcanoes.
So, accurate samples are impossible to measure and confirm as to be coming from specific Volcanoes.
Balloon method attempts to measure CO2 end in failure due to the thermal updrafts destroying Chromatography equipment and balloons loosing lift and falling in the desired hot zones.
Until new money is invested to develop better measurement methods we will have rely in inaccurate measurement methods of CO2.
Real levels are unpredictable due to unknown flow and geologic particle makeup brought up my Volcano.

Reply