Comments on: Volcanoes and CO2

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:36:28 +0000

The soda reference is dumb when using inflated numbers. Also egg heads tend to discount items deemed not reliant because of personal prejudice . Thus with the egos banging away at each other to be number one with the best information. The real information is lost in non relevant data.
The tax payers fork over money to universities and government entities for these studies and We would like a real report. Yet we get a partial report that is useless.The public is not stupid. Just frustrated that the information is hidden, twisted, or just not complete. The worst is that even with good intentions to do great work, too much discounting of seemingly unlikely evidence has lead the best to unnatural conclusions. Humans are part of nature, and to separate people from nature is wrong.Some parts of the world need people in order to live. Nature has ways to counter co2. Yet the methods it uses are not fully monitored . So we have a lot of Chicken littles yelling doom. Study a bigger slice of the pie to report on. The threads of evidence will connect them selves.

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:09:24 +0000

I find it interesting that mt st Helen’s amount of co2 out put went down when Al Gore wanted to release his movie . It was reported that the sensors around the mountain recorded that in one eruption in 2006 or 7 it produced more co2 than all of north and south America combined for one year.That is all sources man and nature. When Al Gore came then like magic the numbers were reduced. Why should I read about people who are supposed to study and report what they find only to be lied to by fraud producing environmentalists who produce more co2 than The mountain did?

By: Richard Lawson

Richard Lawson — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:47:08 +0000

His Grace says “The other question is whether a large eruption would cause a blip on the climate record. I think it’s uncontroversial that the particulates from the eruption would cause a cooling, but that these come out of the atmosphere quickly. I thought though that it was the basis of the AGW case that climate is sensitive to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Shouldn’t there be a warming then?”

Big volcanoes cause an appreciable cooling on the temperature record, but their CO2 injection does not produce a blip on the CO2 record, because it is so small (1/150th) compared to our efforts.

By: Charles W. Ekstedt Sr.

Charles W. Ekstedt Sr. — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:39:38 +0000

FUZZY HEADED THINKING

In a cursory look at the issue of CO2 in the atmosphere, I found a number of websites stating that volcanic activity accounted for only about 3% of annual emissions into the atmosphere, and that human activity, therefor, accounted for the remainder, or 97%. Of course, the unstated assertion is that the only natural source is volcanic activity.

[Regarding volcanic activity, I would consider large specific events, such as the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, as a statistical blip requiring an adjustment to data in a specific year, but contributing to a computable annual average, say adjusted to a longer period, such as 10 or 100 years. Better yet, an average composed only of on-going volcanic activity based on a 100 year time scale, with discrete events providing exciting blips added to the data for specific limited time periods with their impact studied separately, would be a more appropriately professional approach to the study of this particular "natural" source (the "naturalness" of any source could to some degree provide a stimulating debate, given the apparent assumption that human activity is somehow not "natural", with the Pandora style considerations that may arise from such an assumption).]

Of course, while the study of the effect of volcanic activity within the “natural” realm is a worthy, and sometimes titillating, subject in itself, it is not the only “natural” source of CO2 emissions.

The truth is that human activity, which adds some 15GT of CO2 (net) to the “natural” environment annually, certainly a mind boggling number, is a very small contribution in the overall “natural” scheme of things.

For more honest information, see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm.

Cheers!

By: Charles W. Ekstedt Sr.

Charles W. Ekstedt Sr. — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:12:38 +0000

FUZZY HEADED THINKING

Re the example of the carbonated drink above: Just how much if this fuzzy headed “thinking”/data gathering goes into estimates of human co2 generation?

Obvuious: co2 in coke comes from all various sources as a compressed gas and therefor is only slightly better than netural (some energy required to compress).

By: Frank O'Dwyer

Frank O'Dwyer — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 01:53:46 +0000

“If all gases are changing at the same rate, all the hype over CO2 may be for nothing.”

That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Besides, what CO2 concentration is doing (increasing) and the source (us) is known, and what the other gas concentrations are doing won’t change that.

By: Tide Runner

Tide Runner — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 06:11:33 +0000

Do you know of any data on the production of O2 and N2 per year compared to CO2? My textbook data indicates that the percentage of gases in the atmosphere up to 20 miles is the same now as it was in 1960. Everyone seems to be tracking CO2 ppm as a function of years, but I do not see the ppm for the other gases plotted over the same years. If all gases are changing at the same rate, all the hype over CO2 may be for nothing.

By: Frank

Frank — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:34:44 +0000

Marc, no it is 2.2g – I was just using it as an example of how small numbers can be made to seem large by switching units.

By: Marc Opie

Marc Opie — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 14:13:45 +0000

There is 2.2 kg in a bottle of coke??? Last time I held a bottle of coke in my hand the mass was about 12 oz, or 0.35 kg. And 99% of that was water.

US consumption is 15 billion gallons. Let’s see, that’s 150 billion kg of coke per year, or 500 kg of coke per american.

That’s a lot of coke and a lot of sugar. No wonder America’s economy is so vibrant. We’er all souped up on sugar.

By: Frodo

Frodo — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:27:51 +0000

And everyone seems to foret that the Earth is a Biosphere, that in reality is only capable of sustaining aboth half of the current population.

When we exceeded the limit we started cutting down more forests to build places to live, this is the double-edged sword that is causing the problem.