It seems there’s really no complete measurements on how much CO2 is coming out of volcanoes, both active and inactive.
From Livescience: Long Invisible, Research Shows Volcanic CO2 Levels Are Staggering (Op-Ed)
…
In 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200. The most recent estimate, released this February, comes from a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology – and it’s just shy of 600 million tons. It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades.
These inflating figures, I hasten to add, don’t mean that our planet is suddenly venting more CO2.
Humanity certainly is; but any changes to the volcanic background level would occur over generations, not years. The rise we’re seeing now, therefore, must have been there all along: As scientific progress is widening our perspective, the daunting outline of how little we really know about volcanoes is beginning to loom large.
Quiet monsters
The exhalations of our planet can be spectacularly obvious. The fireworks, though, are only part of the picture. We now know that the CO2 released during volcanic eruptions is almost insignificant compared with what happens after the camera crews get bored. The emissions that really matter are concealed. The silent, silvery plumes which are currently winding their way skyward above the 150 or so active volcanoes on our planet also carry with them the bulk of its carbon dioxide. Their coughing fits might catch the eye — but in between tantrums, the steady breathing of volcanoes quietly sheds upwards of a quarter of a billion tons of CO2 every year.
We think. Scientists’ best estimates, however, are based on an assumption. It might surprise you to learn that, well into the new century, of the 150 smokers I mentioned, almost 80 percent are still as mysterious, in terms of the quantity of CO2 they emit, as they were a generation ago: We’ve only actually measured 33.
If the 117 unsampled peaks follow a similar trend, then the research community’s current projection might stand. But looking through such a small window, there’s no way of knowing if what we have seen until now is typical or not. It’s like shining a light on a darkened globe: randomly, you might hit Australia, and think you’d seen it all – while on the edge of your beam, unnoticed, would be Asia. Our planet’s isolated volcanic frontiers could easily be hiding a monster or two; and with a bit of exploration, our estimate of volcanic CO2 output could rise even higher.
You’d think that would be enough. That might be my fault — I tend to save the weird stuff until the end. Recently, an enigmatic source of volcanic carbon has come to light that isn’t involved with lava — or even craters. It now seems that not only is there CO2 we can’t get to, there’s some we can’t even see.
…
Even more incredibly, it even seems that some volcanoes which are considered inactive, in terms of their potential to ooze new land, can still make some serious additions to the atmosphere through diffuse CO2 release. Residual magma beneath dormant craters, though it might never reach the surface, can still ‘erupt’ gases from a distance. Amazingly, from what little scientists have measured, it looks like this process might give off as much as half the CO2 put out by fully active volcanoes.
If these additional ‘carbon-active’ volcanoes are included, the number of degassing peaks skyrockets to more than 500. Of which we’ve measured a grand total of nine percent. You can probably fill it in by now — we need to climb more mountains.
Related articles
- Long Invisible, Research Shows Volcanic CO2 Levels Are Staggering (Op-Ed) (livescience.com)
- Indonesia’s Mount Sinabung continues to erupt (abc.net.au)
- Volcano spews ash 3km high (stuff.co.nz)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
After reading , I feel a GRANT coming on.
rgbatduke & eric1skeptic:
Here a plot of the NH seasonal variations of CO2 and δ13C at Barrow and Mauna Loa 1990-2012:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg
January levels fixed at zero ppmv CO2 and zero per mil d13C.
CO2 in Barrow is at sealevel, while Mauna Loa is at 3,400 m height, where CO2 and δ13C variations are lagging somewhat and more leveled of by mixing with the bulk of the atmosphere.
The extra absorbance of CO2 in the biosphere during spring-summer is by preference more towards 12CO2, which leads to an increase of the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere…
If we assume, as we should, that volcanic activity, above and below the ocean surface, has been more or less stable over periods of centuries and millennia, then the steady annual rise of CO2 from about 300 ppm about 150 years ago to nearly 400 ppm today (daily values seen in Anthony’s climate widget) is due to something other than volcanos — specifically, the increase in emissions from human economic activities.
Let’s not try to convince ourselves otherwise. The crucial issues with CO2 have to do with climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2, with the consequences of CO2 increases (a function of climate sensitivity), and to discerning what the appropriate responses should be as well as their time frame. There is plenty of debate, reasonable debate, about whether western governments are impoverishing their peoples with their highly expensive renewable energy policies. See Bishop Hill’s discussion Nov. 17:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/11/17/sober-scary.html
The extra absorbance of CO2 in the biosphere during spring-summer is by preference more towards 12CO2, which leads to an increase of the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere…
Thanks, very informative.
rgb
And if history is a guide, the smart money is on that man-made number being vastly exaggerated and the natural volcanic amount being vastly underestimated. knowing what we know about modern “science” and the fusion with politics would anyone really bet against that?
Exactly. It’s like going to Las Vegas and discovering gambling is going on. In the meantime we notice our two closest planetary neighbors also have a lot of CO2 and of these three planets our own Earth’s atmospheric proportion is the least, bordering on minuscule. Carbon is a very common element, as is Oxygen, and like peanut butter and jelly they blend together nicely except that CO2 doesn’t need human help to appear on the scene.
But they sure as hell can blame us for it. Scapegoating, i.e., assigning blame to someone else to further an agenda is a time-tested strategy used by Socialists and racist Democrats for centuries as blacks and Jews can easily attest.
You want a real scientific solution? How about developing an accurate and inexpensive CO2 measuring modules and insert them into cellphones ( because you shouldn’t need an expensive dedicated air quality monitor to do this ). Then, all the folks spreading lies about CO2 Armageddon can wet their diapers when they see the little widget showing 800 ppm as they sit in their comfy warm office or even higher numbers in their car. No, I do not trust the “scientific community” to be the gatekeepers of CO2 concentration ( or global temps or arctic sea ice or … ). They have proven themselves agenda driven scoundrels for well over 30 years now and should no longer be called scientists at all.
Blade says:
November 18, 2013 at 8:20 am
Oh, please. Mauna Loa results agree very well with results from other sites. Do you think that’s a coincidence? Or could it be because they are all measuring the BACKGROUND CO2 levels, not the local variations in CO2. The issues at Mauna Loa are well known. Read the dang link I pointed to above, “Under the Volcano, Over the Volcano” and you can stop embarrassing yourself with this kind of anti-scientific nonsense. There are loads of bad datasets in climate science to complain about, but the Mauna Loa dataset isn’t one of them.
w.
Blade says:
November 18, 2013 at 8:20 am
Please get some more information on what is done at Mauna Loa to supply the best data that can be measured. There are rigorous continuous calibration procedures at work and if the data are contaminated by local disturbances (either volcanic or from vegetation in the valleys), these data are not used for daily to yearly averages. What they publish are the “background” data and nothing else. Here are the procedures:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
See here a plot of the raw data and the “cleaned” daily and monthly averages of Mauna Loa and the South Pole:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_mlo_spo_raw_select_2008.jpg
The direct influence of the volcano is +4 ppmv with downslope wind at maximum and by upwind wind from vegetation in the valley -4 ppmv at minimum. It doesn’t even matter for the average or trend if you include or exclude the “outliers”.
What you measure at home or in your car or in a forest is interesting, but has nothing to do with what happens in the bulk of the atmosphere. Neither has measuring temperature over an asphalted parking lot anything to do with local, regional or global temperatures…
Blah blah blah. You know what, you two can believe whatever the hell you want. You’re apparently not old enough to recognize scammers playing you like a fiddle. Me, I’m nearing the end of the road and have no time or patience to be fooled again.
One thing I can guarantee Willis, but unfortunately won’t be around to collect on a bet is that those assuredly correct current numbers for CO2 from humans versus volcanoes you offer is wrong on both counts in the same direction as I stated. If they could freeze our heads or something and awaken us in 50, 100, or whatever years when the scam is over and real science re-emerges you would owe me a beer or three. But no hard feelings. You’re still one of the most thoughtful writers I’ve come across.
Blade says:
November 18, 2013 at 10:00 pm
What we believe? Belief has nothing to do with it. We’ve pointed you to the relevant information, documents, citations, and procedures. Instead of showing us where any of that is wrong, incorrect, or improperly implemented, you dismiss it as “blah blah blah” …
Perhaps that kind of baby talk works with your friends, Blade. It doesn’t work with me. Either come up with some real information or go peddle your specious, citation-free claims and your “blah blah blah” elsewhere.
w.
Blade says:
November 18, 2013 at 10:00 pm
Blade, if you have some information of how one does manipulate the measured CO2 data of some 70+ “background” stations, maintained by different organisations in different countries and hundreds of people involved with some 0.005 ppmv/day, you may have a point.
If you don’t have such information, the “blah, blah” is entirely at your side…
BTW, I am old enough to remember the “global cooling” scare of the 70’s, the “acid rain” scare of the ’80’s, the “global warming” scare of the ’90’s and on and a few other scares in between(especially the “dioxin crisis”, where I was directly involved as working in a chlorine/PVC factor at that time)…
Thus I am quite sceptical about any new scare and related “measurements”, but CO2 measurements are what they are. The scare is by others who abuse the CO2 data to scare people of the “dire consequences”, all based on failed computer models…
Willis Eschenbach [November 18, 2013 at 11:15 pm]
Ferdinand Engelbeen [November 19, 2013 at 1:56 am]
Both of you right now are seamlessly mixing two completely separate issues … alleged CO2 emissions from humans versus volcanoes … and alleged C02 air concentration measurements.
It is for the latter case that you have your all important PDFs allegedly documenting careful measurements based on real “science” that a few of us have the temerity to question. But about this 400 ppm, measured most famously at a huge volcanic sight in Hawaii I really couldn’t care less about for the simple reason that 400 ppm is nothing short of anemic. Change that to 200 ppm and the food chain collapses and everything dies. People that trumpet this magic 400 ppm ( and you know who they are and what they are attempting ) are like bulimics arguing over how to reduce their calorie count further while flirting with near certain death. 350.org is like anorexia.org.
It is the former case, with the assuredly bogus numbers you cited Willis, that are complete guesstimates. You couldn’t measure “mere” tons of CO2 without fudging, let alone the billions ( gigatons ) you are apparently happy to accept from those scientists you chose to give automatic reverence. This is why I said “believe whatever the hell you want”. They don’t even know the number of volcanoes out there, and I bet they don’t even know the number of human factories, power plants, and even people … all of these unknowns are sources of CO2 and are necessary quantities even before applying magic formulas.
So once again, without even knowing the number of CO2 sources, the guesstimates of CO2 emissions you toss around become orders of magnitude removed reality. This is why I said “believe whatever the hell you want”. Oh yes, they could accidentally be correct, like a room full of monkeys banging on typewriters just might hammer out ‘War and Peace’, but I’m going with instinct here – I don’t believe a word of it. And Willis, I wasn’t going to mention it, but leave the “anti-Science” ad hom out of this, it is beneath you. Following the meme of the day is not Science, questioning everything from authority to agenda driven pseudoscience from con-artists is far more scientific than appealing to authority or consensus as you have done here in this thread.