Who told conservatives that one volcano produces more CO2 then all human activity combined?

Question

I hear this myth every once in a while. I would like to know where it came from. Cons if you say climate scientist, give the link to the scientific website.

HUMAN ACITIVITY PRODUCES OVER 150 TIMES MORE CO2 THEN ALL VOLCANIC ACTIVITY COMBINED

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!
- US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

booman,

Nice try, but I asked for CO2 produced by volcanoes versus CO2 produced by humans. You are lumping CO2 produced by everything else versus just humans.

That is a false comparison because the CO2 produced by nature has largely remained constant for the last thousand years, while the CO2 produced by humans has kept increasing exponentially every year.

According to the IPCC report, human activity is the primary cause for increased global temperatures. You can't cite one part of the report and ignore the rest.

Answer 1

I will say it again, even if they were right, why do we need an excuse to clean up pollution? Our general health is a decent excuse. Smog, dirty water, and toxic waste account for most of the worlds health problems and disease. We could all do our part "just because" it is the decent thing to do. We should keep our house clean.

Answer 2

Please provide me a single Chemical or Physical Law or Principle that allows you to conclude that near doubling atmospheric CO2 (by humans , which is documented) will have no subsequent Thermodynamic effects. Keep in mind, the heat retention properties of CO2 have been known since the 1820s... Further, show me any shred of evidence that suggests ecosystems (which society is, by any standard) do not modify their environments, (and there are numerous studies showing such in deleterious ways)... Until folks can disprove the obvious hypothesis that we do manipulate and affect the atmosphere and climate, then we can concentrate on the mechanisms of how this plays out in the open earth systems... PS - volcanoes are "background" emissions and cannot be changed, but there is ample evidence showing the link between increased periods of volcanism and CO2 levels concomitant with Warming... Anyone want to discuss the Paleocene_Eocene Thermal Maxima?

Answer 3

No, you are relying on a straw man.

CO2 is not a pollutant, it is one of the weakest of the green house gases. For example, H2O has 20x the "greenhouse effect" powers of CO2, yet no one complaines about the "evils of steam".

The arguement concerns all greenhouse gases that are produced by man versus volcanoes. And the fact is when you take into effect other gases, like Amonia etc. vulcanization does produce more greenhouse gasses than humanity. It is because of volcanoes, combined with the EMF field, that we have an atmosphere at all.

Answer 4

By human activity do you mean exhaling?

Scientists really don't know anything. I don't see how people can believe them. Their story changes almost daily. It's all propaganda. Scientist, like politicians, cannot be trusted because they work by the leave of their employer. They don't produce anything. They have to beg for funding. Therefore, they will tell any given person what that person wants to hear at any given moment.

You have been informed, go forth and spread no more ignorance!

By human activity do you mean exhaling?

Answer 5

Here:
In 1992, according to the IPCC's own data:



So, in 1992 nature was contributing 160 gTons of CO2, while man was contributing about 8 gTons, for a total annual insertion into the atmosphere of 168 gTons. Now, all but 3 gTons are absorbed either by biological sinks or the oceans, or escape into the stratosphere.

So, according to the IPCC, man only contributes about 8/160ths of the total insertion of CO2 annually into the atmosphere. That amounts to about 5%.

The global-warming alarmists will argue that the net 3 gTons that are NOT absorbed, which represents a net introduction into the atmosphere, are all because man adds his 8 gTons (to nature's 160 gTons), only 5 of which get re-absorbed.

If the IPCC says man is contributing 5% of the total introduced into the atmosphere, then my guess it the real figure is much lower (based upon their history of fudging numbers).

If you think about it, the estimation of annual CO2 pumped into the atmosphere is a real SWAG, and could be WAY off. For that matter, the estimates of how much nature is contributing is also a huge guess.
Of course I will get thumbs down for this post, stating the IPCC's own numbers and disproving your silly supposition that man puts more CO2 in the atmosphere than nature, but you don't really want to know the FACTS, do you?.......Ok....then read this since it doesn't matter anyway.

Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930's the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920's until the 1960's they warned of global warming. From the 1950's until the 1970's they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth's climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.

What the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.

Something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970's, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age.

A letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6, 2006 by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism, clearly explains the current state of scientific knowledge on global warming. The 60 scientists wrote: "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." The letter also noted: "‘Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise."

In 2006, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks Alaska, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than "science fiction."

"Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again." That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.

A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor "Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age." The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the "Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold." An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: "Ice Age Coming Here."

By the 1930's, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming: "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise" stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.

The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles. An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared: "Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada." The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be "wiped out" and Switzerland would be "entirely obliterated."

A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed "the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade." The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, "mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence" would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that "A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable."

On February 19, 2006, CBS News's "60 Minutes" produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water. "60 Minutes" failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's than today.

According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was "0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average."

In August 2006, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun's output.

Answer 6

Facts are useless against the AntiEnvironmental, AntiPersonal-Responsibility crowd.

Useless, I tell you.

Answer 7

you operate under the false notion that..conservatives care about the things you care about..I can state here that we do not care...one freaking bit..(sorry if I pretentiously speak for some of you)

you assume there is an diametric argument..there isn't..the tenor of the discussion is automatic dismissal..by considering the source..

algore and rfk jr..in their private jets and congressmen in
limousines are the joke..when they are your opinion leaders

Answer 8

Please stop worshiping Lying Al and think for yourself This is getting pathetic

Answer 9

I think it was Al Gore.. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!