Weird times when the Catholic Church is more honest about science than the scientists are.
CARDINAL GEORGE PELL has rebuffed the head of the Bureau of Meteorology, who had said Australia’s highest-ranking Catholic was ”misled” in his views on global warming.
Dr Greg Ayers told a Senate estimates hearing last month that the Archbishop of Sydney’s argument against human-induced climate change was based heavily on a book by Ian Plimer, Heaven and Earth – Global Warming: The Missing Science, which had been discredited by members of the scientific community.
”The contents of the book are simply not scientific. I am concerned that the cardinal has been misled [by its contents],” the bureau director said.
But Cardinal Pell told the Herald the statements by Dr Ayers, an atmospheric scientist, were themselves unscientific. ”Ayers, when he spoke to the house, was obviously a hot-air specialist. I’ve rarely heard such an unscientific contribution.”
The cleric, who has questioned global warming in his Sunday newspaper column, even likened himself to the federal government’s climate adviser Ross Garnaut when he last week expressed disappointment that the public debate on climate change was often divorced from scientific quality, rigour and authority.
”I regret when a discussion of these things is not based on scientific fact,” Cardinal Pell said. ”I spend a lot of time studying this stuff.”
But Professor Garnaut had also said he was more certain the mainstream science supporting global warming was sound, and there was no ”genuine” scientific dissent.
Cardinal Pell argued against human-induced global warming in a written submission to the hearing, claiming increases in carbon dioxide tended to follow rises in temperature, not cause them. He also stated, based on Professor Plimer’s book, that temperatures were higher in Roman times and the Middle Ages.
There may not be any scientific dissent…..
….but the rest of us that have to chew gun and walk……….
Does the cardinal also believe volcanic CO2 emissions are 100 x larger than human produced sources?
According to the DOE, nature produces 97% of CO2 emissions. Nice try though.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
Steve, do you REALLY want to leave that comment there the way it is? I will give you a chance to read my comment again. look closely a the actual words used, and then read your comment. Try to notice where the words are different and then try to respond again. See, I am not an unfair man!.
97% of CO2 emissions comes from earth processes which happen regardless of human influence.
Steve,
that is nice, but it has nothing to do with my comment or Pilmer or volcanoes. Are you saying that there are any climate scientists who believe something different? What did you mean by “nice try though”? If your comment had not included the phrase “nice try though” I would have just agreed with you, and asked my question again. Hint, I did make a MAJOR mistake in how I worded my question. Extra credit if you catch it!
I am not a mind reader so can not answer your question about the Cardinal’s beliefs in quantity of CO2 from Volcanoes. I do not think Plimer made any claim as excessive as 100X that you are claiming. However I did not read the book. I am aware that natural contributions of CO2 to the carbon cycle are as Steven put it in the neighborhood of 97%, Approx, give or take a few. I am aware that volcano activity “Globally” is greater than human contributions.
Count on Mike to find my mistake. I mixed up the 100x. What I meant was that according to those nefarious scientists, anthropocentric CO2 release is 100x more than from volcanoes.
Mike what is your source that “globally” volcanic activity is more than human activity. The only “source” I am aware of is Plimer himself.
Do you have specific reason to believe the below is wrong or fraudulent.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
97% of CO2 emissions have nothing to do with human beings.
Steve,
why keep repeating something no one questions? certainly not me.
Why do you keep talking about volcanoes? It is irrelevant to this discussion.
this Cardinal is relying on Plimer, who contends that volcanoes release more CO2 than Humans, when as has been pointed out many many times, and as i posted from USGS the amount of Human produced CO2 is over 100x more than from volcanoes. Mike says otherwise but I am waiting for some documentation from him, as I see nothing on the google except Plimer stating he is right with no sources.
No one I know of disputes the 97% figure for ALL natural sources of CO2. that is irrelevant to the issue as far as I can see. Unless you maintain that since human addition is only 3% it cannot have any greenhouse effect. This would put you in opposition to Lindzen, Spencer, Christie, Pilke Sr. and every other climate scientist I know of.
And it has been pointed out to you many times that the leaders of the climate science community are FOS.
As usual Steve supplies no facts when presented with information not of his liking.
So numerous peer reviewed studies and the USGS all saying human contribution to CO2 levels in the atmosphere are over 100X more than volcanic sources can be just waved away with no counter evidence whatsoever because it is THEM who are saying it.
Steve, I know it is hard for you, but all you have to say is that Plimer is wrong about this particular, OR supply SOMETHING other than his pledge of scouts honor right hand on the bible over his mothers grave that he is right and every one else is wrong.
You really won’t be less of a man if you are skeptical about the more bizarre claims of ACC deniers.
Your straw man argument is a waste of time. No one else is talking about volcanoes.
97% of CO2 emissions have nothing to do with human beings..
Tony Duncan,
Your link only talks about surface volcanoes. Plimer includes all volcanic activity on earth, which covers 1000’s of miles of underwater volcanism, on the ocean floor, not just volcanoes on the surface of the dry land.
The red lines, in the map at the link, that run along the ocean floor are where co2, and other things, are produced:
http://www.gisdevelopment.net/magazine/gisdev/2000/may/images/image002.gif
“The great majority of the Earth’s volcanism occurs at spreading centers, most of which are under the ocean, forming the mid-ocean ridge system where new ocean crust is being created.
http://www.mbari.org/volcanism/Ridge/Default.htm
“As two tectonic plates slowly separate, molten material rises up from within the mantle…..”
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/vents/nemo/explorer/concepts/spreading.html
Spreading center volcanism occurs at the site of mid-oceanic ridges, where two plates diverge from one another.
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/seafloorvol_page.html
correction,
your link only talks about underwater and above water “volcanoes”.
The mid-ocean ridge and underwater volcanoes are not the same.
Tony:
Paul Nurse claims humans emit 7 times more CO2 than nature and he was relying on a claim made by an atmospheric physicist.
More than 90% of volcano activity is under the oceans. I do group all geothermal activity into a group called VOLCANO as that is easier for some to comprehend rather than use the word GEOTHERMAL. As far as all GHG combined Volcanoes contribute considerably more than humans. However there again I grouped the gasses under the CO2.
I have been a fan of volcanoes and other natural geological conditions since the late 60s so the only reference would be memory.
The Catholic church still favors large families and no serious birth control. All these extra people emit large quantities of evil CO2.
Amino,
you did not read the link. You just read Plimer and/or people who want to believe Plimer because he is against ACC and anyone against ACC has to be right.
here is what my link actually says:
“The half dozen or so published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 132 million (minimum) to 378 million (maximum) metric tons per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998; Kerrick, 2001).”
and
“Human activities, responsible for some 36,300 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2008 [Le Quéré et al., 2009], release at least a hundred times more CO2 annually than all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2010).”
and interesting that your links reference USGS. I am just guessing here, but maybe the USGS and the papers listed are aware of the new science of plate tectonics.
None of your links contradict anything in my link. Please supply me with something that shows volcanic/tectonic activity releasing more than 36 THOUSAND million tons or a source that shows that that number is wrong by 2 orders of magnitude.
Hurry up, I am biting my nails in anticipation. Not often I get to argue with you guys where I can’t find ANYTHING that even vaguely supports your position.
Manhattan is underwater.
submarine volcanoes and mid-ocean ridge are not the same.
If you can prove they are please start to.
“I am just guessing here, but maybe the USGS and the papers listed are aware of the new science of plate tectonics.”
No need to guess. They know. But again, the study you reference only talks about underwater volcanoes. If it also included the mid-ocean ridge it would have included that wording. But it does not have that wording. An underwater volcano does not look like the mid ocean ridge. I am sure they know the difference. I don’t think they are as sloppy as you say.
Mr. Duncan, here is a link to a geologist’s site who discusses the proportions of subaerial and submarine volcanoes with abundant references. I have not reviewed all of these references, but note that he claims from this literature review there are upwards of 3 million submarine volcanic centers of which perhaps 140,000 are active at any one time. This dwarfs the number of subaerial volcanoes.
He is particularly critical of the reliance by the USGS on just a few sources and in particular Gerlach who reviewed very few volcanic sites (only 10 in one oft quoted paper).
The estimates derived from the more numerous published volcanic studies is that there is likely in the order of 25 to 120 gigatonnes of total volcanic CO2 emissions annually, versus the 3.6 gigatonne anthropogenic estimates.
The author at this link believes that Plimer underestimated.
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
At this internet site there is also a tag to “Most Misquoted”. In there you’ll find a discussion of Gerlach, his poor estimation skills, and a discussion why he’s repeatedly referenced.
Tony Duncan says:
March 14, 2011 at 7:11 am
None of your links contradict anything in my link.
People who believe in global warming fudge data and words some times. But in real science fudging is not allowed. At the point you fudge is the point you depart from science.
Where is the fudging in 36 thousand million tons, and 200 million tons. All you have to do is show me some science that finds 35,801 million tons of CO2 in these subduction zones or any other volcanic/tectonic source that is not included in the link I gave you.
Fudging, as you call it, is finding all sorts of excuses not to present that data.
Or you can show me how USGS is purposely ignoring 0r fraudulently covering up this huge source of CO2 in order to promote the AGW hysteria.
The fudging is in using ‘volcano’ and ‘mid ocean ridge’ as interchangeable terms. They are not.
Hurry up, I am biting my nails in anticipation.
Why do I need to hurry? Have you consumed the nails and are starting in on the skin?
The mid ocean ridge snakes along the ocean floor for 10,000’s of miles. It runs east and west, and north and south, looping the entire earth.
http://www.gisdevelopment.net/magazine/gisdev/2000/may/images/image002.gif
I’ve given 5 replies since you said to hurry. It’s been 20 minutes. Are you occupied with chewing on your fingers tips?
It’s late. I know it doesn’t feel late because of the time change. You should get some sleep.
Tony Duncan says:
March 14, 2011 at 7:11 am
Amino,
you did not read the link. You just read Plimer and/or people who want to believe Plimer because he is against ACC and anyone against ACC has to be right.
I do? You can read people’s intent and know why they do things? I hope you weren’t one of those people that tried to “divine the intent of the voter” in the Florida recount.
What you say reveals more about how you think and not how I do.
Amino.
I just asked you to present any data that contradicts the numbers the link I presented gave.
If as you say the link I gave does not include CO2 from plate ridges please supply the additional data.
As i said none of your links contradict anything in the link I gave, and none of what you say now means anything unless you have numbers. SOMEONE has to have studied it, or is this an area that Overlord Hansen has forbidden be spoken of?
As for my mind reading, it is just a hypothesis, but so far it is a quite reasonable explanation for people defending something that they have absolutely no evidence to support
THIS is the paper that USGS keeps crapping on about. Do a websearch and you won’t even find it. You have to go into a university and get a hard copy it’s so hidden.
This is a review of that article, you think the science is settled?? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
http://gerlach1991.geologist-1011.mobi/
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm time to read some science
Scarlet,
at least you are trying. that link is to someone who claims to show that Gerlach’s 1991 paper is rather worthless. This is NOT a peer reviewed document, so i have no way to know whether it is valid or not. I DO know that there are numerous other papers that do not contradict Gerlich 1991, some of which are in the references in the link I provided. He cites absolutely NO scientific sources that indicate any possibility of 100x the amount of CO2 that is asserted by the actual peer reviewed papers.
Again is this because of a conspiracy to prevent the information from coming out, or is there some other reason?
Peer review equals scientific fact.
Tony, if you look at every statement that comes out that volcanoes dont’ produce much CO2, it always comes back to that article, but that article really is not that great.
There are 3million undersea volcanoes. You will only see an eruption if it comes near the surface. The mid atlantic ridge goes from the top of the planet to the bottom of the planet, and you think there is little CO2 coming out of it? It’s like the Grand Canyon stretching the length of the planet.
El Nino/La Nino has positive correlation in peer reviewed articles that increased seismically events occuring there correlate to changes in this system on parts of the East Pacific rise.
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
This is a highly underearched area. There are many many calderas under the sea, some 50km-100km wide. All are unmonitored and we really don’t know whats going on.
Scarlet, you keep references this one person with no sources to back up what you are saying
What do you want me to back up, I can’t see your references either?
Who are your journals from? East Anglia and Pennsylvanian Uni LOL!!! 😛 😛 😛
Tony likes to say he’s independent and is just trying to find the truth. But he’s been assimilated into the Borg. Who knows though, he may really be trying to get out if it.
It’s been more than a half hour. You must have chewed beyond the wrist by now. Bad habit.
If we single out the word ‘volcano’ then your link is right. But if we are going to talk about what Ian Plimer has said then we have to include all sources, both volcanoes, and the mid ocean ridge. I know Ian Plimer includes the mid ocean ridge because I saw him talking about it on video.
The idea to pick out the word ‘volcanoes’ and then find fault with Ian Plimer over it is a straw man. And he has been hammered with it.
In the end, global warming is more about what is left unsaid than what is said.
Amino,
this is from the same link I gave. Did you not read ANY of it? they do mention mid ocean ridges. So their data must be fraudulent, or you have another explanation?
“It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,700 K?lauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require the addition of over 100 mid-oceanic ridge systems to the sea floor.”
There are 3million, at least 30,000 are currently active? Not enough?
By the way, why is “Ocean Acidification” occur in the sea, but not in lakes?
Because there are no volcanoes in the majority of lakes….
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/NASA_Study_Goes_To_Earth_Core_For_Climate_Insights_999.html
Volcanoes, the sun and the core control the “weather” not some stupid little trace gas. You saw the power in Japan. CO2 does nothing, it’s just a marker of biological activity, if its hot it goes up as there is more life, down if there is less life when it is cold. Who cares if it goes up a few ppm. It has no relevance to anything except snake oil science that Al Gore featured in his movie 2012
What you are saying is contradicted by the main skeptic climate scientists. Lindzen, Spencer Chrisite and Pilke all say that CO2 does affect climate through greenhouse effect. their disagreement with the vast majority of climate scientists rests on either climate sensitivity factors such as clouds or other unspecified processes, or on homeostatic properties, but none contend it has minuscule effect on its own as a climate forcing.
Yeah for the first what 50ppm it works, then it has a little effect. Otherwise Venus would be 10,000C at 95.7% CO2 using your exponential model of CO2 controlling the universe
It depends. If the tropics had no CO2, temperatures wouldn’t diminish by very much.
Tony, I think you’re oversimplifying the messages of these scientists. They contend there are other mechanisms that counter the slight increase in temps that CO2 may present. So, minuscule, absent specific numbers, is as apt as any other word.
suyts says:
March 14, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Tony, I think you’re oversimplifying the messages
It appears he is only able to do over simplifications. He does not appear to be able to grasp what is going on.
SUYTS,
Yes I was simplifying, but those slight changes of single digit changes in Temp from the greenhouse effect of CO2 is accepted by those scientists, it is only other mitigating factors that cause them to believe the actual increase is much smaller than mainstream climate scientists.
Pumpernickel. not sure who whispered to you that I believe in an exponential model of CO2, but those voices are lying to you.
The estimates they quote do not talk about mid ocean ridge.Here’s the quote:
“The half dozen or so published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 132 million (minimum) to 378 million (maximum) metric tons per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998; Kerrick, 2001)”
They only say volcanoes. They do not say mid ocean ridge.
Yeah because they have only been to the ridge a handful of times ever!
Tony doesn’t grasp what’s going on with how terminology is used in global warming science.
Tony Duncan,
You continue to fudge terminology. There is no mention of mid ocean ridge in the studies they use. They only use the word volcano when giving co2 estimates in the studies.
If they use the words mid ocean ridge when giving co2 amount estimates would you give the study? I am not asking you to give a quote from an article. I am asking for a quote from a study. They are different.
This quote:
“Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require the addition of over 100 mid-oceanic ridge systems to the sea floor.”
that does say mid ocean ridge is not from the studies they quote. They studies they quote only say ‘volcano’.
i.e.
“…..all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes……. all degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes….. ”
The studies do not say mid ocean ridge. Fudging the terms together is unscientific. But it is not surprising fudging of terms is happening since ‘global warming’ is rife with unscientific practices.
http://gerlach1991.geologist-1011.mobi/
This is the reference that USGC continually uses!! It’s not settled!
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
CO2 with 3million volcanoes it’s not correct their estimates, Plimer is right, he’s a SCIENTIST!!
Please supply some scientific sources for your assertions.
If true then it completely contradicts all the sources that I have just found tha support Gerlich’s 1991 article.
Which assertion?
Volcanoes undersea have barely been investigated. I mean they just “discovered” a lot of discovers over the last few years. It technically very difficult to go down to those levels.
I mean you can see for example the sea floor expansion is fastest in the Pacific http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Earth_seafloor_crust_age_1996.gif
The slowest ridge in the Arctic the Gakkel Ridge even had lots of activity, pyroclastic cones
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7199/full/nature07075.html
Is that enough or do you want more?
Agustsdottir, A. M., & Brantley, S. L., 1994, “Volatile fluxes integrated over four decades at Grimsvotn volcano, Iceland”, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 99, pp. 9505-9522.
Archer, D., 2009, The Long Thaw, ISBN13: 978-0-9611-3654-7
Bacastow, R., 1981, “Numerical evaluation of the evasion factor” In: B. Bolin [Editor]: Carbon cycle modeling (SCOPE 16). John Wiley & Sons, pp. 95-101
Batiza, R., 1982, “Abundances, distribution and sizes of volcanoes in the Pacific Ocean and implications for the origin of non-hotspot volcanoes”, Earth & Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 60, pp. 195-206
Berner, R. A., Beerling, D. J., Dudley, R., Robinson, J. M., & Wildman Jr., R. A., 2003, “Phanerozoic Atmospheric Oxygen”, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 31, pp. 105- 134.
Cartigny, P., Boyd, S. R., Harris, J. W., & Javoy, M., 1997, “Nitrogen Isotopes in Peridotitic Diamonds from Fuxian, China: the Mantle Signature”, Terra NovaVol. 9, pp. 175-179
Cartigny, P., Farquhar, J., Thomassot, E., Harris, J. W., Wing, B., Masterson. A., McKeegan, K., & Stachel, T., 2009, “A mantle origin for paleoarchean peridotitic diamonds from the panda kimberlite, slave craton: Evidence from 13C-, 15N- and 33,34S-stable isotope systematics”, Lithos, Vol. 112, Proceedings of the 9th International Kimberlite Conference, pp. 852-864, ISSN 0024-4937, DOI: 10.1016/j.lithos.2009.06.007.
Cleveland, C. J., & Morris, C., 2006, Dictionary of Energy, ISBN13: 978-8-1312-0536 -5
Clark, I., & Fritz, P., 1997, Environmental Isotopes in Hydrogeology, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton
Corr, H. F. J., & Vaughan, D. G., 2008, “A recent volcanic eruption beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet”, Nature Geoscience, Vol. 1, pp. 122-125
Craig, H., 1954, “Carbon 13 in Plants and the Relationships between Carbon 13 and Carbon 14 Variations in Nature”, The Journal of Geology, Vol. 62, pp. 115-149.
Des Marais D. J., and J. G. Moore, 1984, “Carbon and its isotopes in mid-oceanic basaltic glasses”, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 69, pp.43-57.
Durkin, M., 2007, The Great Global Warming Swindle, Channel 4 Documentary, U.K.
Deines, P. Harris, J. W., & Gurney, J. J., 1987, “Carbon isotopic composition, nitrogen content and inclusion composition of diamonds from Roberts Victor kimberlite, South Africa: Evidence for 13C depletion in the mantle”, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 51, pp. 1227-1243
Farquhar, G. D., Ehleringer, J. R., & Hubick, K. T., 1989. “Carbon isotope discrimination and photosynthesis”, Annual Review Plant Physiology and Molecular Biology, Vol. 40, pp. 503–537
Fergussen, G. J., 1958, “Reduction of Atmospheric Radiocarbon Concentration by Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide and the Mean Life of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 243, pp. 561-574
Gerlach, T. M., 1991, “Present-Day CO2 Emissions from Volcanoes”, EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 72, pp. 249, 254-255.
Gerlach, T M., & Taylor, B. E., 1990, “Carbon isotope constraints on degassing of carbon dioxide from Kilauea Volcano”, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 54, pp. 2051-2058.
Giggenbach, W. F., Sano, Y., & Schmincke, H. U., 1991, “CO2-rich gases from Lakes Nyos and Monoun, Cameroon; Laacher See, Germany; Dieng, Indonesia, and Mt. Gambier, Australia—variations on a common theme”, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, Vol. 45, pp. 311-323.
Hernández, P. A., Salazar, J. M., Shimoike, Y., Mori, T., Notsu, K., & Pérez, N., 2001, “Diffuse emission of CO2 from Miyakejima volcano, Japan”, Chemical Geology, Vol. 177, pp. 175-185.
Hillier, J. K., & Watts, A. B., 2007, “Global distribution of seamounts from ship- track bathymetry data”, Geophysical. Research. Letters, Vol. 34, L13304, doi:10.1029/2007GL029874
Inagaki, F., Kuypers, M. M. M., Tsunogai, U., Ishibashi, J. i., Nakamura, K. i., Treude, T., Ohkubo, S., Nakaseama, M., Gena, K., Chiba, H., Hirayama, H., Nunoura, T., Takai, K., Jørgensen, B. B., Horikoshi, K., & Boetius, A., 2006, “Microbial community in a sediment-hosted CO2 lake of the southern Okinawa Trough hydrothermal system”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 103, pp. 14164-14169
Ishikawa, A., & Maruyama, S., 2001, “Compositional Variability of the Roberts Victor Eclogites: Evidence for Mantle Metasomatism Involving Diamond Destruction”, UHPM Workshop 2001 at Waseda University Tokyo Institute of Technology, Faculty of Science, Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences
Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T.V. & Hisdal, V., 1992, Atmospheric CO2 and global warming: a critical review; 2nd revised edition. Norsk Polarinstitutt, Meddelelser [Norwegian Polar Institute, Memoirs] 119
Keeling, C. D., 1979, “The Suess Effect: 13Carbon-14Carbon Interrelations”, Environment International, Vol. 2, pp. 229-300
Keeling, C. D., Piper, S. C., Bacastow, R. B., Wahlen, M., Whorf, T. P., Heimann, M., & Meijer, H. A., 2005, “Atmospheric CO2 and 13CO2 exchange with the terrestrial biosphere and oceans from 1978 to 2000: observations and carbon cycle implications”, in J. T. Ehleringer et al., [Editors], A history of atmospheric CO2 and its effects on plants, animals, and ecosystems, Springer
Kerrick, D. M., 2001, “Present and Past Nonanthropogenic CO2 Degassing From the Solid Earth”, Reviews of Geophysics, Vol. 39, pp. 565-586
Koepenick, K. W., Brantley, S. L., Thompson, M. L., Rowe, G. L., Nyblade, A. A., & Moshy, C., 1996, “Volatile emissions from the crater and flank of Oldoinyo Lengai volcano, Tanzania”, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 101(B6), pp. 13,819–13,830
Korte, C., & Kozur, H. W., 2010, “Carbon-isotope stratigraphy across the Permian–Triassic boundary: A review”, Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 28 January 2010, ISSN 1367-9120, DOI: 10.1016/j.jseaes.2010.01.005. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VHG-4Y889W0-1/2/b6de34e4d904c625eaf0796e3df07daf)
Lupton, J., Butterfield, D., Lilley, M., Evans, L., Nakamura, K., Chadwick Jr., W., Resing, J., Embley, R., Olson, E., Proskurowski, G., Baker, E., de Ronde, C., Roe, K., Greene, R., Lebon, G., & Young, C., 2006, “Submarine venting of liquid carbon dioxide on a Mariana Arc volcano”, Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems: an electronic journal of the earth sciences, Vol. 7, Q08007, doi:10.1029/2005GC001152
Manning, A. C., Keeling, R., F., & Severinghaus, J. P., 1999, “Precise atmospheric oxygen measurements with a paramagnetic oxygen analyzer”, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, Vol. 13, pp. 1107- 1117
Monroe, R., 2007, “The (Ralph) Keeling Curve”, Explorations: The Magazine of Ocean and Earth Sciences, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, December.
Morner N. A., Etiope, G, 2002, “Carbon degassing from the lithosphere”, Global and Planetary Change, Vol. 33, pp. 185-203
Perfit, M. R., Gust, D. A., Bence, A. E., Arculus, R. J., & Taylor, S. R., 1980, “Chemical characteristics of island arc basalts: implications for mantle sources”, Chemical Geology, Vol. 30, pp. 227-256.
Pineau, F., & Mathez, E. A., 1990, “Carbon isotopes in xenoliths from the Hualalai Volcano, Hawaii, and the generation of isotopic variability”, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 54, pp. 217-227
Plimer, I. R., 2001, a short history of planet earth, 250 pp., ISBN13: 978-0-7333-1004- 0
Plimer, I. R., 2009, Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science, 503 pp., ISBN13: 978-1-9214-2114-3
Puustinen, K., & Karhu, J.A., 1999 “Geological Survey of Finland, Current Research 1997-1998”, in S.Autio, [Editor], Geological Survey of Finland, Special Papers, Vol. 27, pp. 39 -41
Rankama, K., 1954, “The isotopic constitution of carbon in ancient rocks as an indicator of its biogenic or nonbiogenic origin”, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 5, pp. 142-152.
Reves-Sohn, R., Willis, C., Humphris, S., Shank, T., Singh, H., Edmonds, H., Nakamura, K., Schlindwein, V., Soule, S., 2008, “Explosive volcanism on the ultraslow-spreading Gakkel Ridge, Arctic Ocean”, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 10, EGU2008-A-02442, SRef-ID: 1607- 7962/gra/EGU2008-A-02442, EGU General Assembly
Sakai, H., Gamo, T., Kim, E. S., Tsutsumi, M., Tanaka, T., Ishibashi, J., Wakita, H., Yamano, M., & Oomori, T., 1990, “Venting of Carbon Dioxide-Rich Fluid and Hydrate Formation in Mid-Okinawa Trough Backarc Basin”, Science, v. 248, pp. 1093-1096
Sano, Y., Gamo, T., Notsu, K., & Wakita, H., 1995, “Secular variations of carbon and helium isotopes at Izu-Oshima Volcano, Japan”, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, Vol. 64, pp. 83- 94
Schneider, M. E., & Eggler, D. H., 1986, “Fluids in Equilibrium with Peridotite Minerals: Implications for Mantle Metasomatism”, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 50, pp. 711- 724
Schultz, F., Lehmann, B., Tawackoli, S., Rossling, R., Belyatsky, Dulski, P., 2004, “Carbonatite diversity in the Central Andes: the Ayopaya alkaline province, Bolivia”, Contributions to Mineralogy & Petrology, Vol. 148, pp. 391-408.
Segalstad, T.V., 1996, “The distribution of CO2 between atmosphere, hydrosphere, and lithosphere; minimal influence from anthropogenic CO2 on the global “Greenhouse Effect”. In J. Emsley [Editor]: The Global Warming Debate; The report of the European Science and Environment Forum Bourne Press, Ltd., Bournemouth, Dorset, UK, pp. 41-50.
Segalstad, T. V., 1998, “Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma.”, in R. Bate [Editor]: Global Warming: The Continuing Debate, European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF), Cambridge, England, pp. 184-219, ISBN10: 0-9527-7342-2
Shinohara, H., 2008, “Excess degassing from volcanoes and its role on eruptive and intrusive activity”, Reviews of Geophysics, Vol. 46, RG4005, doi:10.1029/2007RG000244.
Sohn, R. A., Willis, C., Humphris, S., Shank, T. M., Singh, H., Edmonds, H. N., Kunz, C., Hedman, U., Helmke, E., Jakuba, M., Liljebladh, B., Linder, J., Murphy, C., Nakamura, K., Sato, T., Schlindwein, V., Stranne, C., Tausenfreund, M., Upchurch, L., Winsor, P., Jakobsson, M., & Soule, A., 2008 “Explosive volcanism on the ultraslow-spreading Gakkel ridge, Arctic Ocean”, Nature, Vol. 453, pp. 1236-1238
Statchel, T., & Harris, J. W., 2009, “Formation of diamond in the Earth’s mantle”, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, Vol. 21, 364206, doi: 10.1088/0953-8984/21/36/364206
Suess, H. E., 1955, “Radiocarbon Concentration in Modern Wood”, Science, Vol. 122, pp. 415-417
Symonds, R. B., Rose, w. I., Bluth, G., & Gerlach, T. M., 1994, “Volcanic gas studies: methods, results, and applications”, in M. R. Carroll & J. R. Holloway [Editors], Volatiles in Magmas: Mineralogical Society of America Reviews in Mineralogy, Vol. 30, pp. 1-66
Tans, p. P., de Jong, A. F. M., &Mook, W. G., 1979, “Natural atmospheric 14C variation and the Suess effect”Nature, Vol. 280, pp. 826-828
Taylor, B., 2006, “The single largest oceanic plateau: Ontong Java–Manihiki–Hikurangi”, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 241, pp. 372-380.
USGS (United States Geological Survey), 2010, “Volcanic gases and their effects.”, Retrieved ISO:2010-May-19 from USGS Web site: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php, Rev. ISO:2010-Apr-30-14:36:55 UTC
Werner, C., Brantley, S. L., & Boomer, K., 2000″CO2 emissions related to the Yellowstone volcanic system: Statistical sampling, total degassing, and transport mechanisms”, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 105(B5), pp. 10,831–10,846
Werner, C., & Brantley, C., 2003, “CO2 Emissions from the Yellowstone Volcanic System”, Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems: an electronic journal of the earth sciences, Vol. 4, 1061, doi:10.1029/2002GC000473
Wilson, M., 1989, Igneous Petrogenenis: A Global Tectonic Approach., ISBN13:978-0-4125- 3310-5
Wishart, I., 2009, Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth about Global Warming, ISBN13: 978-0-9582-4014-7
Witter, J. B., & Self, S., 2007, “The Kuwae (Vanuatu) Eruption of AD 1452: potential magnitude and volatile release.”, Bulletin of Volcanology, Vol. 69, pp. 301-318.
Zheng, Y.-f, Gong, B., Fu, B., Li, Y., 1998, “Extreme 13C depletion in ultrahigh pressure eclogites from the Dabie and Sulu terranes in China”, Mineralogical Magazine, vol. 62A, pp. 1698-1699; DOI: 10.1180/minmag.1998.62A.3.223
Zielinski, G. A., Mayewski, P. A., Meeker, L. D., Whitlow, S., Twicker, M. S., & Taylor, K., 1996, “Potential atmospheric impact of the Toba mega-eruption ~71,000 years ago”, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 23, pp. 837-840.
Gee, to think that USGS is unaware of these dozens of peer reviewed articles that show Volcanic/tectonic CO2 release is more than a hundred times greater than they say.
Could you please supply relevant quotes from each of these sources that state that. you might want to index and cross-reference them for me. Sorry but I just don’t have time to read all of them
Hey, there you are Tony. You didn’t supply the scientific works that include mid ocean ridges in their estimates of co2 production yet.
BTW did you check your counter recently?
if (WIDGETBOX) WIDGETBOX.renderWidget(‘f2d84a03-b719-4983-8f16-4afa18fbd64b’);Get the Al Gore Doomsday Countdown widget and many other great free widgets at Widgetbox! Not seeing a widget? (More info)
Tony Duncan,
Let’s not go in this same circle. The article uses the term “mid-ocean ridge” but the studies they use say only “volcano”. The studies themselves do not use the term “mid-ocean ridge”. You keep directing me to an article that does not back what you say. The quote you give that actually says “mid-ocean ridge” is not from any of the studies they use in the article. That was added by whoever wrote the article.
This quote from the article tells it all:
“The half dozen or so published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes….”
They are really talking about volcanoes.
Until you give a quote from a study that is talking about mid ocean ridges and not exclusively volcanoes there is no way we can do anything but go in circles.
Can you see that?
I have not read the studies except for Gerlich posted on the geographers site that you supplied.
Since the link I gave you discussed mid ocean ridges and the necessary increase I gathered that their effect was calculated.
If what your geologist is saying is correct, it seems to be a rather vast conspiracy that all those cited papers you gave supported his position are ignored by USGS and all climate scientists I am aware of in the google search that I did.
I see nothing in your links ( I read each of the titles) that specifically indicates the assertions you are making.
Again, you are supplying info from one person who sounds very knowledgeable, I would want to see what the response to those assertions is from other scientists who are studying this phenomenon. that is what the peer reviewed literature is for. If that has been done, and the USGS and all mainstream climate scientists are ignoring then you have clear evidence of conspiracy, since Plimers claim is so roundly ridiculed among climate scientists, who know that he is telling the truth!
back in the same circle.
Maybe you are unable to understand at this time
Tony Duncan says:
March 14, 2011 at 8:04 am
Amino,
this is from the same link I gave. Did you not read ANY of it? they do mention mid ocean ridges. So their data must be fraudulent, or you have another explanation?
No. That’s wrong. Mid ocean ridges are not mentioned in the estimates taken from the studies. For some reason the writer of the article adds mid ocean ridge at the end of the article. Mid ocean ridges had not be talked about up to that point.
Some might call that bait and switch.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/09/mining-garnaut
I am still waiting for you to supply studies that show there are orders of magnitude more CO2 being vented by the oceans than USGS says.
I looked at the Nature articles and they do suggest that previous estimates could be significantly undervalued. Not being a geologist or expert in degassing, I would want various opinions about what this means.
But thank you for presenting something that does raise the question of the accuracy of the USGS figures.
“At least 13.5?wt% CO2 is necessary to fragment magma at these depths3, which is about tenfold the highest values previously measured in a mid-ocean-ridge basalt4. These observations raise important questions about the accumulation and discharge of magmatic volatiles at ultraslow spreading rates on the Gakkel ridge5 and demonstrate that large-scale pyroclastic activity is possible along even the deepest portions of the global mid-ocean ridge volcanic system.”
there is still the issue of the net increase in CO2 in the atmosphere being caused by Anthropogenic sources.