Folks, hold onto your hats—two groundbreaking studies dropped this past month, and they’re shaking up everything we thought we knew about carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth’s atmosphere. The first, from The University of Manchester, reveals that volcanic CO2 emissions could be three times higher than previously estimated. The second, from the School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology (SOEST), uncovers a staggering 19,325 previously unknown undersea volcanoes. Together, these findings throw a massive wrench into the narrative that human activity is the sole driver of rising atmospheric CO2. Let’s dive in.
Manchester’s Volcanic CO2 Bombshell might be a game changer. The Manchester team, led by Alexander Riddell, deployed cutting-edge sensors on a helicopter to measure emissions from the Soufrière Hills Volcano in Montserrat. Published in Science Advances DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.ads8864, their findings are a wake-up call. Traditional monitoring focused on hot volcanic vents (fumaroles) that spew easily detectable gases like sulfur dioxide (SO2). But cooler, water-rich hydrothermal systems absorb acidic gases, masking significant CO2 output. The new tech revealed that Soufrière Hills emits three times more CO2 than earlier estimates suggested.
Riddell notes, “Volcanoes play a crucial role in the Earth’s carbon cycle,” but he’s quick to downplay the impact, claiming volcanoes contribute less than 5% of global CO2 compared to human activities like fossil fuel burning. Fair enough, but if one volcano’s emissions are underestimated by a factor of three, what about the thousands of others worldwide? The study hints at a broader issue: our volcanic CO2 estimates could be way off, especially for volcanoes with similar hydrothermal systems.
Meanwhile, researchers at SOEST, including Paul Wessel and Scripps’ David Sandwell, used high-resolution radar satellite data to map the ocean floor. Their study, published in Earth and Space Science, identified 19,325 new seamounts—undersea volcanoes—bringing the total to over 43,000 SOEST News. With only a quarter of the seafloor mapped by sonar, most of these underwater giants remain uncharted. These seamounts aren’t just geological curiosities; they’re potential CO2 sources, stirring ocean currents and influencing carbon cycles.
The study emphasizes their role in ocean mixing, where currents around seamounts create “wake vortices” that drive upwelling, pulling carbon-rich deep water to the surface. This process could amplify the ocean’s role in atmospheric CO2 exchange, yet we’ve barely scratched the surface of their emissions. If terrestrial volcanoes are underestimated, what’s the bet that these underwater behemoths are too?
Here’s where it gets spicy. The climate establishment loves to pin the rise in atmospheric CO2—now around 420 ppm—squarely on human emissions. But these two studies, released within weeks of each other, expose massive gaps in our understanding of natural CO2 sources. If volcanic emissions on land are triple what we thought, and we’ve just found 19,000+ new undersea volcanoes, the natural contribution to atmospheric CO2 is likely far higher than the “less than 5%” figure tossed around.
Let’s do some back-of-the-envelope math. The USGS estimates global volcanic CO2 emissions at about 0.26 gigatons per year USGS Volcano Hazards Program, compared to human emissions of ~35 gigatons. But if Manchester’s findings apply broadly, that 0.26 could be closer to 0.78 gigatons or more. Add in unknown contributions from tens of thousands of undersea volcanoes, and the natural CO2 flux starts looking like a serious player. We’re not saying humans don’t contribute—fossil fuels are a big factor—but the certainty of attribution just took a major hit.
These discoveries don’t just challenge climate models; they demand a rethink of how we monitor and predict CO2 trends. Manchester’s sensor tech could revolutionize volcano monitoring, potentially improving eruption forecasts and safety for nearby communities. Meanwhile, SOEST’s seamount catalog opens new avenues for studying Earth’s carbon cycle and ocean dynamics. But until we quantify these natural sources, we’re flying blind on how much CO2 is truly “anthropogenic.”
The climate debate thrives on certainty, but science thrives on doubt. These studies remind us that nature is full of surprises, and our grasp of Earth’s complex systems is shakier than we’d like to admit. It’s time to dial back the dogma and invest in better data—because if we’re underestimating volcanic CO2 by this much, what else are we missing?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“carbon-rich deep water”
________________________
Huh? What’s that, CO2 rich water? If that’s what that means:
Hmm I’ll have to make one that has Farley Invoking God’s love about referring to CO2 as Carbon.
==>
Maybe “carbon-rich” means there is lots of organic matter ??
But how do coal fired power plants and SUVs cause volcanos?/s
Gaia responds to certain stimulii.
You don’t see people asking why throwing virgins into the volcanos will stop the destruction … it just is what it is. (and questioning others’ faith is rude).
They do it indirectly via Dow Jones index. Compare it with Keeling curve.
Removing the coal ‘unburdens’ the land forcing magma to rise where there is less pressure on the earth. Ditto for SUVs. All those heavy SUVs driving around stimulate the earth allowing the magma to flow better just like a massage does with blood to your muscles.
Note that is a much more valid and fact-based reason than chemtrails or the flat earth.
Oregon State loves volcanoes:
https://volcano.oregonstate.edu/submarine
There’s loads of them. Possibly millions. Mostly inactive. And remember those found under the Antarctic. By a Scotsman.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_volcanoes_in_Antarctica
The alarmist line seems to be that melting ice sheets mean the volcanoes are more likely to erupt rather than heat from the volcanoes may contribute to ice melting.
Who knows.
There’s the answer right there. Questioning CO2s role in the observed warming is one thing. But questioning anthropogenic emissions themselves and trying to make an argument they’re trivial over time is a completely different argument because we know what they’ve been.
Multiply that by the proper percentage given 19,000 newly identified volcanos or potential volcanos.
They are seamounts not volcanoes!
“identified 19,325 new seamounts—undersea volcanoes—”
— quoted from the article
Note I used potential in my post.
Seamounts in simple definition are undersea mountains that do not reach the surface. There are explanations as to how seamounts form, one of which is volcanic activity.
“Seamounts are generally found at mid-tectonic plate regions, called hotspots, and near the boundaries of tectonic plates.”
https://www.papahanaumokuakea.gov/monument_features/physical_guyots_banks.htmlhttps://www.papahanaumokuakea.gov/monument_features/physical_guyots_banks.html
(A NOAA website)
https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/edu/materials/how-seamounts-form-fact-sheet.pdf
(NOAA)
“Seamounts are typically formed from extinct volcanoes “
— wiki
There are several online dictionaries that define seamounts only as undersea mountains.
There are a number of oceanography science websites that include formation due to volcanic activity.
So, while there are seamounts that are not volcanoes, your claim that infers all seamounts are not volcanoes is incorrect.
Let’s see. .26 gigatons/yr X 3.5 billion years. (Could be longer)
35 gigatons/yr X 150 yrs
Which number is going to be larger?
But CO2 levels were thought to be stable between a few hundred ppm and a few thousand ppm. Your calculation has them ever increasing to waaaaaay beyond thousands of ppm.
So the upshot is that the sequestration rate (ie CO2 being locked up in the environment) approximately equals the emission rate (ie volcano emissions) over time.
The argument is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are additional to that approximate balance that had been established.
You’re the one who brought the idea of “trivial over time”. And depending on the time chosen they are.
Between 1850 and 2024 human emissions were 725 ± 70 GtC [Friendlingstein et al. 2025]. That is 340 ± 33 ppm of CO2. Considering that CO2 was about 280 ppm in 1850 calling 340 ppm “trivial” stretches the meaning of “trivial” beyond anything reasonable.
Funny how scientists in the early 19th century measured CO2 levels in the atmosphere comparable to levels reported today.
Funny how scientists in the 1850-1800 recorded CO2 levels at the lowest point in that century as well as some of the lowest temperatures recorded also were made in that interval.
340 ppm +/- 33 ppm has a low of 307 ppm compared to the estimated 280 ppm, it is trivial. In fact the 10% error band on the 340 applied to the 280 ppm could, could result is a comparison of 307 ppm versus 308 ppm.
Accepting the estimated nominal or average as a pristine value is not science.
Say what?
Even at the low end of the estimate of 307 ppm that is 110% of what was in the atmosphere to begin with. That is hardly what any reasonable person would call trivial.
It’s in the context of the article which suggests 0.26Gt volcanic emissions might be 0.78Gt and therefore we don’t know just how important they’ll be. Well 35Gt is so much more that any argument questioning the reasons for the net increases we see because volcanism might be a major cause are misplaced until something more concrete is known.
It was never stated in the article that volcanism is a major cause.
“It’s time to dial back the dogma and invest in better data—because if we’re underestimating volcanic CO2 by this much, what else are we missing?”
That, I believe is the gist of your post.
Undersea volcanism is a factor. It is the magnitude of that factor that has yet to be determined. It could be trivial, negligeable, or minor (a few percentages), or significant. We do not know.
Consider that this new insight is revealing more of what we do not know, how is it that the science is “settled” and we should impose draconian measures without a true science based justification for those measures?
There are many factors that are not included. The science definitely is not settled.
As an aside, I upvoted your posts. I believe good discussions increase knowledge.
Here. Here. I think we can all agree with that.
While the point that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are in addition to natural emissions is correct, there is also the change in flora world wide that establishes a new equilibrium point (approximate balance), not that nature ever achieves equilibrium in anything.
Fire up all fossil fuel and nuclear generators. Build new fossil fuel and nuclear generators. Remove all wind and solar from the grid.
Amen to that. That rates a triple plus.
Compared to fossil CO2, the volcanic CO2 is very small
All that W/S subsidy money uglified the countryside, killed fisheries, tourism, viewsheds, etc.
But the climate is not any different, even though, atmosphere CO2 increased from 280 ppm in 1850 to 420 ppm in 2025, 50% in 175 years.
During that time, world surface temps increased by about 1.5 C, of which:
.
1) Urban heat islands account for about 65% (0.65 x 1.5 = 0.975 C), such as about 700 miles from north of Portland, Maine, to south of Norfolk, Virginia, forested in 1850, now covered with heat-absorbing human detritus, plus the waste heat of fuel burning.
Japan, China, India, Europe, etc., have similar heat islands
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/16/live-at-1-p-m-eastern-shock-climate-report-urban-heat-islands-responsible-for-65-of-global-warming/
2) CO2 accounts for at most 0.5 C, with the rest from
3) Long-term, inter-acting cycles, such as coming out of the Little Ice Age,
4) Earth surface volcanic activity, and other changes, such as from increased agriculture, deforestation, especially in the Tropics, etc.
“contribute less than 5% of global CO2 compared to human activities like fossil fuel burning.”
Human contribution is something like 4% of the total CO2 flux.
And the argument is that a nearly constant anthropogenic flux of about 4% is responsible for recent warming because it is accumulating. What if the volcanic emissions were to increase to about 2% of the total flux? Would we even be aware of it?
Wasn’t there a guy posting here a little while ago touting the science of his simple mass balance, and that it showed that people were responsible for all the change in atmospheric CO2?
He was very sur of himself.
Do you have any evidence that CO2 from volcanoes increased substantially over the last 200 years?
Beyond that, we know how much fossil fuels are being burned, and we know how much CO2 that amount of fossil fuels will produce. That amount of CO2 is some 3 to 4 times larger than the increase that was observed.
No we don’t because we haven’t been monitoring it and are just recently becoming aware of the magnitude of emissions from submarine volcanoes and dormant terrestrial calderas.
Why only 200 years? What may be the lag time for various changes?
Nope, don’t know. Does anyone?
That’s the point.
Do you have any evidence the proves the contrary?
I defend, despite vehemently challenges from the WUWT community, both the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of mass. I am confident regarding the validity of these laws so it could have been me. There are others here that share my confidence in these laws so I can’t say definitively that it was me.
No one is questioning Conservation of Mass. However, if the natural fluxes of CO2 have been systematically undercounted, your calculations are worthless.
Also, those working in the Carbon Cycle arena have made the assumption that prior to the Industrial Revolution the system was in equilibrium. It is difficult to do an adequate sampling of the various natural sources and sinks for CO2. So, if their initial estimate(s) for the ocean flux didn’t balance, how much pressure would be present in the climatology community to be sure that the numbers did balance? We have pretty good numbers for anthropogenic emissions because of sales taxes. We don’t have anything comparable for natural sources and sinks. Thus, the Carbon Cycle researchers have to rely on estimates that are much larger and of lower accuracy for the natural fluxes.
It’s not an assumption. It is a consequence of the law of conservation of mass.
When ΔM ~ 0 then it must be the case that Min ~ Mout.
No they don’t. The law of conservation of mass comes to the rescue here.
ΔM = (M_a_in + M_n_in) – (M_a_out + M_n_out)
ΔM = M_a_net + M_n_net
Using [Friedlingstein et al. 2025] estimates for the mass currently in the atmosphere and the anthroprogenic emissions we have the following.
ΔM = 285 ± 5 GtC
M_a_net = 725 ± 70 GtC
Our measurement model for M_n_net is as follows.
M_n_net = ΔM – M_a_net
Therefore…
M_n_net = -440 ± 70 GtC
Note that I used the NIST uncertainty machine to evaluate the measurement model and used [JCGM 100:2008] guidelines for the expression of the measurement and significant figures.
Your system is not defined.
The system is the atmosphere.
That doesn’t work. The atmosphere continuously loses mass to space, and to plants, foraminifera, and so on.
It gains mass from combustion products, hydrolysis etc etc.
The system is the universe.
A model with no data to back it up, no definition of experimentation to validate the model.
You could be right. But verification and validation are vital in science.
The model here is the law of conservation of mass such that ΔM = Min – Mout. It has been backed up and validated ad-nauseum whether you accept it or not.
Mr. x: Mr. Flynn has shown that your law applies to more than the atmosphere, you hoist your own petard.
First…he didn’t say that. What he said is that it doesn’t apply to open systems like the Earth.
Second…I’m the one who is defending its universality and its application everywhere both open and closed alike including the atmosphere and beyond.
Mr. x: Your petard still hangs. You are the one who can’t apply the law nobody denies.
And just so everyone knows my “petard” here is the law of conservation of mass. I’m hoping that it “hangs” very prominently so that everyone can see it and so that no one can say that I questioned, challenged, or rejected it.
Mr. x: Nobody said anything except that you got it wrong. You play the martyr like Fauci, too!
No, see the quote above from your linked article.
“The model here is the law of conservation of mass such that ΔM = Min – Mout. It has been backed up and validated ad-nauseum whether you accept it or not.”
I am not questioning the validity of the law of conservation of mass. I agree it is valid. It is the application to a system that never achieves equilibrium that is challenged.
The law doesn’t require a system to be in equilibrium for it to be applicable. If you’re questioning this requirement then you are questioning its validity.
Why do you use gigatons of carbon? Carbon doesn’t do anything it is CO2 that is the issue. Let’s talk only about the item, CO2, that is the claimed problem.
Carbon is a solid and CO2 is a gas, apples and oranges.
It is carbon that is moving through the carbon cycle; not strictly CO2. The carbon manifests in many forms. CO2 is only one among many. And these forms are transformed into one another by various physical process. And it isn’t just CO2 that is the issue. All carbon based molecules in the atmosphere impede the transmission of infrared radiation.
We are not shutting down power plants, getting rid of ICE’s, and trying to use hydrogen for a fuel for any reason other than CO2.
Note that in the link you provide [Friedlingstein et al. 2025] in Fig. 2, it shows a CO2 flux in and out of the oceans of about 80 GtC, yet claim a net gain of 2.9 ±0.4 GtC, essentially the same order of precision as assigned for the proxy fossil fuel emissions. How do they do that? “We derive SOCEAN from GOBMs using a simulation (sim A) with historical forcing of climate and atmospheric CO2 from the GCB (Sect. 2.4), accounting for model biases and drift from a control simulation (sim B) with constant atmospheric CO2 and normal-year climate forcing.”
In other words, they are comparing proxy estimates of anthropogenic emissions (probably accurate and precise to the nearest dollar if not cent) with modeling of the ocean behavior that has a ball of worms in assumptions that are not readily accessible for evaluation. I suspect that their precision and uncertainty estimates from models is optimistic.
Your numbers don’t seem to agree with Friedlingstein et al. and I’m not going to waste my evening trying run down why. Therefore, for the moment at least, I stand by my original statement, “It is difficult to do an adequate sampling of the various natural sources and sinks for CO2.”
I know I promised to analyze this mass-balance argument but I haven’t had time to do so. I will get to it. It would help people understand your position if you used the same variable names and units as the references that you cite, or at least provide your definitions for the variable names you are working with.
P.S. Are you using 1-sigma for your uncertainty as Friedlingstein et al. do, or are you using the more conventional 2-sigma?
The 285 ± 5 GtC figure I gave for ΔM is the mass change in the atmosphere from 1850 to 2023 as shown in table 8. I meant to use the value to 2024 of 290 ± 5 GtC though.
The 725 ± 70 GtC figure I gave for M_a_net is the net mass transfer from humans into the atmosphere since 1850 as shown in table 8.
These figures and the combined uncertainty of the subtraction using the law of conservation of mass are stated as 1σ.
±1σ is only a 68% probability. It makes it appear that the uncertainty is smaller than what is more commonly used outside of the field of climatology.
Then double it if you want 2σ.
I’m just reporting the NIST uncertainty machine output and I did it in a manner consistent with JCGM 100:2008 which says that it is okay to report the standard uncertainty u after the ± symbol and I can do so without specifying that k=1. It is only when the value is the expanded uncertainty U that you must include the k factor or a comment about what U actually is.
It is poor practice to only document a sigma greater than 1 because one can then never be sure that is wasn’t an oversight, particularly since it is common in many disciplines to use 95% probability, even among some climatologists.
The GUM also includes a Section G whose sole purpose is:
You seem to have an attitude that 1σ is an ok value to use for measurement uncertainty. You obviously have no experience in the real world. Notice the reference to ISO 17025 below.
https://www.isobudgets.com/expanded-uncertainty-and-coverage-factors-for-calculating-uncertainty/
Here is an excerpt from the ISO/IEC 17025 web site
From NIST TN 1297
These requirements are standard operating procedures for calculating uncertainty in order to meet legal and regulatory requirements. If you go to court where a measurement is at question, you damn well better have used an expanded unertainty.
I repair amateur radio transmitters and amplifiers. They have specific requirements for bandwidth, spurious emissions, and frequency stability. You bet I use expanded uncertainty when making measurements so I can provide documentation.
Jim do you ever attend the Hamvention in Dayton? If so, maybe we could meet up and talk in person.
Clyde,
It has been many years ago that I attended. It always seemed like I had something going on at work. There were a number of years where I had operations over four states as my responsibility and there were always projects and people problems and ….. . I’ve reached the age where road trips are no fun anymore.
BTW, my call is WA∅LYK.
Same here. Sitting for more than a couple hours and it takes some time to readjust to standing and walking. I’m reminded of the riddle of the Sphinx, which seems to expose a basic design flaw in humans.
Formerly, KN6TZX, at age 14.
I was WN∅LYK at 13 in 1963. Globe Chief 90A (with 3 crystals) and an Ecophone EC-1 with a J-38 key.
You want to make an impression? Put in 31 days of Tmax from anywhere as a sample input from a text file to the NIST UM. Take a screen shot so we can see what it gives you.
DonM and Clyde Spencer are questioning it.
Mike Flynn just outright rejects it and seems to be proud of his position.
Others might notice that you just make stuff up when you can’t quote me saying what you want to hear.
If you want to look like a fool, don’t let me stop you.
Mr. x: Hilarious, Mr. Flynn showed your error, your law applies to the entire mass not just the atmosphere. The more you post, the more clear it becomes, even to me.
Mr. Flynn did not say that. In fact he said the opposite of that. He said the conservation laws do not apply to open systems. Both the atmosphere and the Earth are open systems.
You misrepresent my position. I question whether one can use big numbers with low precision to obtain small numbers with high precision.
I was responding to your statement “Also, those working in the Carbon Cycle arena have made the assumption that prior to the Industrial Revolution the system was in equilibrium.”
I took that to mean that you think the carbon cycle being in equilibrium prior to the industrial revolution is an assumption. I’m not sure what big/small numbers and low/high precision has to do with that.
It is an assumption. The simple fact is, the earth energy systems, atmosphere, oceans, and land are never in equilibrium. Things are always changing. Just the planetary rotation disallows equilibrium.
Equilibrium when ΔM = 0 is no more an assumption than inertial motion is an assumption when F = 0. Both are facts arising from laws of physics. The former being the law of conservation of mass while the later is the Newton’s 2nd law of motion.
Which doesn’t apply to an open system like the Earth. The Earth has demonstrably cooled, and the surface is no longer molten.
All that energy is gone – lost – never to be seen again. Conserved maybe, but somewhere else. Maybe you could explain the relevance of your statement, because in my worthless opinion, just saying “. . . the law of conservation of energy . . .” is meaningless word salad.
Irrelevant. Sorry about that.
Mass is arriving from outside Earth every second. Energy is leaving every microsecond, that’s why Voyager1 could take the Pale Blue Dot photograph at 6 billion kilometres.
I would guess that the Universe is the closed system in this case.
Not according to current cosmology
theorieshypotheses.Mass is leaving Earth too. Not that it matters since even if it were only arriving Earth would still be an open system.
The travesty of Michael Flynn’s comment here is that it is blatantly wrong. Open systems still obey the law of conservation of mass. That is ΔM of the open system must equal Ein – Eout just like it does for closed systems. The only difference between an open and closed system is that in former ΔM <> 0 while in the later it is ΔM = 0.
Not really. Mass is energy, as you have said.
The Earth has cooled, and the Sun has lost mass. In the case of the Earth, energy in has been exceeded by energy out, resulting in cooling, but maybe you deny reality.
In the case of the Sun, the reaction which creates all the light from the Sun (all frequencies, of course) is matter being converted back to raw energy – and fleeing into the vast universe.
Even on Earth, the Hiroshima atomic bomb converted about 0.7 g of matter to energy quite quickly – which then eventually proceeded to outer space – totally lost to the Earth system.
So not even your conservation of mass really applies, does it?
Maybe you’re implying that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter, in some very obscure and roundabout way. It doesn’t, but I’m not challenging your faith.
Solar winds blow a bit of atmosphere away every second of every day.
Fortunately the cosmos is generous. Tidbits of comets and meteors enter every second replenishing many things, including volatiles and metals and organic compounds. This statement does not convey an equilibrium exists.
When you (or anyone) aren’t aware of the input variables (as associated with a subject system), it makes it hard to take the analysis or conclusions seriously.
When I’m not aware of an input I replace it with an algebraic variable and solve for it using an equation that relates it to other variables. In this particular case that is the law of conservation of mass ΔM = Min – Mout. I’m disappointed, though not surprised, that you don’t take this analysis seriously.
Sensible people measure things. Correlation is not causation.
Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter.
CO2 is lighter than the C and the O2 which are combined. The reduced mass is the energy given off during combustion. Einstein said e=mc2, so the mass is very small, but not zero.
Maybe you don’t believe Einstein, but the results of converting mass to energy by nuclear fission or fusion, or the energy output of the Sun, seem to support his theories.
How can one calculate the mass of the total atmosphere when the water vapor constant varies to such a degree that it masks any delta CO2 at any moment.
If you’re question is…how can the total mass of the atmosphere be calculated given the individual masses of the components that make up the atmosphere then the answer is to use the law of conservation of mass. M = Σ[Mx, 1, n] where M is the total mass of the atmosphere and Mx is the mass of one of the n components that make up the atmosphere.
If the question is…can it be done easily the answer could be no.
Regardless, the total mass of the atmosphere is a diversion since that isn’t the focus of this blog post. The focus of this blog is the mass of CO2 (or more generally carbon) in the atmosphere.
No one questions those laws. The questions arise from your specific application of those laws. Such questions should be allowed if this is a scientific endeavor.
Questioning their application is questioning them. They apply everywhere all of the time including chaotic, dynamic, multiple coupled energy systems. That’s why we call them laws.
BTW…I’m going to nip a potential avenue of gaslighting in the bud right now. No, no one has forgotten that mass can be converted into energy and vice-versa. That’s why the broader law is of conservation of mass-energy. But when no such conversions are happening (or are negligible) we can model this broad conservation law as two laws; one for mass and one for energy separately.
From post:”…mass can be converted into energy and vice-versa.”
I am not aware of any experiment that converted energy to mass.
None? You aren’t ware of Fermilab or the LHC? Those certainly aren’t the only experiments where energy was converted into mass, but they are probably the most well known.
Heard of both of those never read anything that said they produced a mass of something from energy.
They accelerate particles to near the speed of light giving them a lot of kinetic energy. That kinetic energy is transformed into mass when those particles collide.
The first experimental demonstration of this was in 1933 by Joliot and Curie when they created an electron-positron pair from a photon.
Actually, sodium has been produced in limited experiments validating energy to mass conversion.
Maybe growing plants under artificial light might count? The energy absorbed during photosynthesis doesn’t just vanish, it is converted to mass
All you would need is a very sensitive scale to measure the weight increase, compared to the inputs..No doubt a climate scientist would have one – they claim to be able to measure average sea levels to better than the thickness of a human hair, average temperature of the oceans to fractions of a degree, and even global surface temperature!
“Questioning their application is questioning them.”
Nope.
You ever seen that video where Fauci says, “I am the science.”? Look in the mirror, you are declaring yourself to be the law. Fool.
I’m declaring conservation of mass to be the law. And I stand by what I said. Questioning its application is questioning it. It is universal and applies everywhere. Call me a fool all you want. It doesn’t change the indisputable fact that the law of conservation of mass is true everywhere and all the time.
And you declare your applications of that law to be infallible. Fauci.
It is infallible. That’s why we call a “law”.
Mr. x: And your application of it, that’s also a law? You make it too easy.
Yes. Not only am I allowed to apply it the atmosphere or any reservoir of the carbon cycle or even the carbon cycle as a whole I’d be wrong to ignore it and/or dismiss the consequences of it.
Is megalomaniac too strong for this one?
It is a law that has very explicit assumptions in order to make applicable to problems. Your simplified assertions make no mentions of the conditions and context that allows it to be applied in the conditions of the earth and atmosphere.
Yes, to give an extreme case, plugging in numbers in an equation such as Bragg’s Law, when the circumstances and units of measurement require the use of Snell’s Law, will result in nonsense. bdgwx is demonstrating the all too common behavior of not being sure that what they are doing meets the assumptions necessary for the calculations being valid.
When you see me plugging in the velocity of my car on the highway, the radiant exitance of the Sun, the density of water, or some other nonsensical value into the law of conservation of mass then we can discuss your concern in more depth.
As I said, “an extreme case.” The point is, there are usually constraints on how and where a particular formula is used.
Exactly. Insolation absorbed by land sends some of the skyward as IR but it also diffuses some downward into the ground where it can be stored for months before it again reaches the surface and contributes to current IR.
It is why gradients are used and is one reason Newton invented calculus. Average just can’t deal with conditions like that.
We are not questioning its application in general, which means we are not questioning the law itself.
We are questioning your specific application, your hypothesis.
Questioning it’s application to a system is questing the law itself.
This is no different than saying you agree with Newton’s 2nd law of motion in general; you just question its application to cars, planets, or whatever system your thinking of in the moment and which you don’t agree with the result.
Nice try, but you are wrong.
Your simplified explanation is rife with assumptions that are quite obvious.
You don’t quote anything I said so I’m not sure what this statement is referring to.
All of my explanations here use the law of conservation of mass. The assumption I’m using is that it is true. This includes being true for the atmosphere system.
I seriously doubt anyone has argued against conservation of energy or mass. Disagreeing with your conclusions is a different thing entirely.
I mean…unless your head is buried in the sand you can clearly see the rhetoric going on right now in this very blog post.
They aren’t just disagreeing with the conclusion of the law of conservation of mass. They are saying it does not apply to the atmosphere.
Regardless of how you rationalize it that is arguing against it.
Mr. x: This law applies to my yard? Because my neighbor says some of my mass (grass clippings) goes on his yard. Have I violated the law you cite, or am I wrong in applying it to my yard (an open system, grass-wise)? My neighbor wants to know.
You take mockery so well.
Yes. Conservation laws apply to your yard as well. When you move the grass clippings from your yard to the neighbors yard the mass of grass in your yard decreases by the same amount it increases in your neighbors yard. It doesn’t matter that neither your nor the neighbors yard is an open system.
Mr. x: Really? None of it sticks to the mower deck?
I’m sure you’ll tell us it’s trivial, because you never considered it and it doesn’t help your CliSci narrative. Your “everybody here attacks the law” whine gets you what?
Yep.
It applies to your mower too. What ever mass moves from your yard to your mower necessarily causes an increase in mass within your mower and a decrease in mass in your yard. And again, it doesn’t matter that your mower is an open system. The law of conservation of mass still applies.
Not everybody does attack the conservation laws. Many (perhaps even most) commenters and article authors here accept them.
We are not doing any of what you said.
We are saying your specific application is questionable.
Right. That’s what I said. My application is the atmosphere, ocean, land, and/or any other reservoir that participates in the carbon cycle. People are telling me that I cannot apply it in these cases therefore it isn’t universal or an actual law.
When you fill in 96-97% of the “sources” and 100% of the “sinks” with estimates and assumptions, you can tell any story you like.
I never heard it once in school … efficient Engineering is, in large part, ‘knowing’ which variables are to be discounted or ignored.
(this info also lets one massage the output pretty well if one is wants to do that)
Last year, I did a study of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions over the period from 1959 through 2022, and compared them to CO2 concentrations reported at Mauna Loa. Using an estimation for the total mass of the atmosphere, it can be derived that an imbalance of 8.0 Gt of CO2 emissions (total sources – total sinks) would result in an increase of 1 ppm in the CO2 concentration.
If global anthropogenic emissions are 35 Gt/yr, and everything else was in equilibrium, then CO2 concentrations should increase at a rate of 35 / 8.0 = 4.6 ppm/yr, but the concentrations at Mauna Loa are increasing more slowly, meaning that natural sinks are absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere faster than natural sources are emitting it.
A regression analysis (r^2 = 0.83) over the 63-year period showed that the overall CO2 content of the atmosphere (in Gt) followed the equation:
dm/dt = 8.0 dC/dt = E + 40.0 – 0.14 C
where dm/dt = increase in CO2 content of the atmosphere, Gt/yr
E = human emission rate of CO2, Gt/yr
C = concentration at Mauna Loa in January of the year, ppm.
This means that the natural sink rate is proportional to the CO2 concentration, which is to be expected, since photosynthesis and absorption or emission of CO2 to/from the oceans (Henry’s Law) are first-order reactions.
The 40 Gt/yr term in the above equation represents a net sum of natural CO2 emissions (including but not limited to volcanoes) less natural sinks which do not depend on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Both the total natural sources and total natural sinks may be much greater than human emissions, but the NET rate is (40 – 0.14 C) Gt/yr.
I’m not sure if I’m the “guy posting here a little while ago touting the science of his simple mass balance”, but the above equation shows that people may be responsible for almost half of the net increase in CO2 concentration of the atmosphere.
But the above equation also contains good news. Since the sink rate increases with concentration, even if human CO2 emissions remained constant at 35 Gt/yr, the CO2 concentration would not increase indefinitely, but would level out when E + 40 – 0.14 C = 0, or when C = 536 ppm. This means that the supposed “equilibrium climate sensitivity” for a doubling of CO2 concentration will never happen, since the CO2 concentration would never reach double the current concentration.
This equation also agrees with the IPCC’s supposition that CO2 concentrations were about 280 ppm before the “industrial revolution”. If we set E = 0 in the above equation and assume equilibrium (dm/dt = 0), the pre-industrial concentration would be 286 ppm, or only about 2% above the IPCC’s estimate.
If there are 19,000 undersea volcanoes bubbling CO2 into the oceans, eventually some of the CO2 will make it to the surface, which (according to Henry’s Law) tend to increase the natural emission rate from the oceans to the atmosphere. Since we don’t know how long ago they started emitting, their emissions may be already included in the 40.0 Gt/yr natural emission rate.
I think you need to perform a unit analysis of your equation. You appear to have mixed units of GtC/year and PPMv. At the very least I think that you need to convert the PPMv to an equivalent GtC.
I like that you stated your assumptions.
Laughable essay by Watts. Atmospheric CO2 is calculated from global fossil fuel combustion data, and verified as originating from same by its isotope ratio. Volcano emissions are a red herring.
This comment makes me wonder if one strung a long and heavily loaded trotline with herring over a volcano would the result be edible red herrings?
I’ll get my coat.
You wanna use indirect heat. Add hickory for flavor.
Do not over-cook or it will fall off the line.
Warren what you wrote is complete utter rubbish, I suspect from an idiot that doesn’t even know what an isotope is. I also doubt you comprehend error analysis. If you are an example of the best that the globalist AI driven climate change fear engine can produce then in your own words you’re doomed. Good riddance
Warren, who cares?
Adding CO2 to air doesn’t make it hotter, you know.
What about a 6000 year coal seam fire, ‘isotope ratio’ indistinguishable from ‘anthropogenic’ emissions? What colour herring is that?
That literally is the clinker of the argument.
With every phase change and chemical reaction (e.g. outgassing from the oceans and pH buffering) isotopic fractionation occurs. I don’t think the system is characterized sufficiently well to rely on your assertion. You can always hope.
Estimated. Not measured.
Isotope ratio. Has sufficient sampling of coal, oil, and natural gas from ALL sources ever been conducted. There is reason to believe the isotope ratio is valid, but it has not been confirmed by sample testing of sources everywhere.
I seriously doubt that all this volcanic activity, both marine and terrestrial, will provide enough CO2 to prevent the next period of glacial advance! While humanity is wasting its time and treasure trying to become “carbon neutral,” the biological and chemical processes that have been lowering oceanic and atmospheric CO2 for the last 150,000,000 years continue unabated!
I have hit on the perfect word to describe climate alarmists, or anyone who believes that humanity is a detriment to life on Earth, rather than its ONLY possible savior. The word is IDIOT!
Yes. That long term declining trend in CO2 would eventually lead to the extinction of plants and animals.
“These seamounts aren’t just geological curiosities; they’re potential CO2 sources, stirring ocean currents and influencing carbon cycles.”
They are just topography. Although a headline writer refers to them as volcanoes, the text just refers to them as seamounts. There is no indication that they are emitting CO2.
“volcanoes contribute less than 5% of global CO2 compared to human activities like fossil fuel burning. Fair enough, but if one volcano’s emissions are underestimated by a factor of three, what about the thousands of others worldwide?”
Well, what about them? One volcano turned out to have 3x a previous estimate. If that was true everywhere, volcanic emissions would go from less tha 2% of human to 5%. But why would volcanic emissions be suddenly increasing?
Here is that plot of atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years.What a coincidence if volcanoes were so exactly mimicing the amount of carbon we burned!
Game over, checkmate you f’ing idiot
Denialist knee jerk reaction.
Meaningless word salad. Were you trying to say something in English?
Sophistry.
If the under estimation of volcanic CO2 emissions holds forth for most volcanoes, then one conclusion is that the various CO2 removal processes are somewhat more effective than originally thought. Your graph implies that 300Gton C of cumulative emissions since 1850 have been removed.
Well, somewhat less than 5% more effective. But the movement of C can be accounted for. Some goes into land biomass, but we can observe that – it isn’t anywhere near 300 Gton. The rest goes into the sea, following a remarkably stable partition fraction (airborne fraction, about half). The reason for this stability is explained here.
But note the direction – into the sea. It is not coming from seamounts.
Humans contribution of enhanced plant growth is 4% of natural flux.
Volcano contribution is 5%.. well done volcanoes,.. plants LUV CO2.
………
“– into the sea”
Ahh so the oceans are getting colder.. is that what you saying.
And yes, CO2 does come from seamounts, and volcanoes, a fissures, and many other geological features.
And seriously.. citing “moyhu”… the guy who runs it is a rabid anti-CO2 alarmist loon !!
Nick, are you trying to imply something, or just providing an opinion about C for no particular reason?
We are a C based life form, you know.
That hasn’t been demonstrated. But that doesn’t mean that seamounts aren’t releasing CO2. The effect would be primarily to increase the CO2 partial pressure in the oceans and reduce the net, sink flux-rate. The oceans are currently taking up 20-35% of the amount of anthropogenic emissions. If there were no submarine sources, then one would expect a higher flux rate, probably in proportion to the relative surface area of oceans to land, that is 70% going into the oceans.
To qualify, the oceans ability to dissolve CO2 is highly dependent on pressure and temperature. At depth, pressure is much greater and CO2 is more abundantly absorbed. At depth, temperature is lower and CO2 is more abundantly absorbed.
However, it is not a static system and it is never in equilibrium. Just the ocean circulations transition water from surface to depth only to rise back up at other locations.
Anyone trying to make a simplified explanation (most present company excluded) of how all of the earth’s energy flows work is headed down the wrong path.
Nick, who cares?
Increasing the amount of CO2 or H2O in the atmosphere results in lower maxima, you know. John Tyndall’s experimental results confirmed his observations and speculations in that regard.
Are you disputing his results?
What causes them? Even Darwin figured that out and he wasn’t really a geologist, just a good observer.
Yes, at some time in the last billion years, they were probably active volcanoes. But hot spots move on.
Australia mainland has no active volcanoes, and emits no volcanic CO2. But it has hundreds of inactive volcanoes.
From google:
Yes, CO2 can indeed seep from dormant volcanoes, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as “cryptic degassing”. Even after surface eruptions cease, CO2 dissolved in underground magmas can slowly escape to the surface. This seepage can occur through various pathways, including vents, porous rocks, and soils.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
https://www.google.com/search?q=co2+seeps+from+dormant+volcano&oq=CO2+seeps+from+dormant+vol&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqBwgBECEYoAEyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigATIHCAMQIRigATIHCAQQIRiPAjIHCAUQIRiPAtIBCjMwMzg2ajBqMTWoAgiwAgHxBaH4KOOA73pR8QWh-CjjgO96UQ&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
So undersea volcanoes are exactly like land based volcanoes?
Do you have any evidence for that?
Without evidence, you are just spouting an opinion. Maybe you’d like to expound on why the ring of fire has not “moved on”?
Mr. Gorman: I observe that when Mr. Stokes pretends to know the unknown, he likes to make a chart.
Flippant hand waving.
And leave a trace, as in the Hawaiian Islands chain.
If Australia has “hundreds of inactive volcanoes,” what makes you so certain that it “emits no volcanic CO2?’ I have already provided examples of inactive calderas in the USA emitting enough CO2 to raise concerns about danger to humans. Have those “hundreds” all been sampled? I doubt it. Yet, you claim to know than no CO2 is being emitted.
It is well known that volcanic activity is episodic and long-term behavior is impossible to predict. Your question makes about as much sense as the old joke, “Why is a mouse?”
Just because we don’t have a predictive explanation for something doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. For the purposes of inductive reasoning to generate multiple working hypotheses, it is relatively unimportant ‘why’ volcanic activity might be increasing. It is sufficient to demonstrate that episodic changes in net volcanic activity occurs. Here is a study that suggests increasing vulcanism on a time-scale of the recent cooling in Greenland:
https://scitechdaily.com/warming-hiatus-caused-part-small-volcanic-eruptions/
Once again you have provided a Red Herring for a sophistical response to facts that undermine your belief system. Your geological credibility carries even less weight than your general objectivity.
Folks, I call out Nick on his BS regularly. I also admit those rare times when he is correct. This is the exact point I was about to make before I saw his comment.
It really doesn’t matter if there’s 3X or 5X as much CO2 from Volcanoes as we thought. It would only matter if there was a CHANGE in CO2 emissions from volcanoes that coincided with the industrial revolution that might be significant. There’s no evidence in either of these studies that there’s been that kind of a change.
Trying to infer the change in something based what on 3-4% of the inputs is also qualifies as “no evidence.”
However, it does change the attribution values of the sources.
While there may be no direct evidence, because there is no monitoring or systematic sampling of previously unknown seamounts, we know that episodic changes take place in terrestrial volcanoes. There is no reason to believe that submarine volcanoes are different.
The fact that there are x-times as many submarine potential sources as previously believed leads one to conclude that they have the potential for being a greater influence than believed and and not so easily dismissed or ignored.
Submarine volcanic CO₂ emissions don’t contribute to atmospheric CO₂ changes. The CO₂ gets dissolved, and since ocean water is stratified, it doesn’t make it to the surface. The ocean gets a little bit more CO₂ at the bottom.
We do an accounting of the fossil fuel we burn. We know quite well how much CO₂ we have produced that way. It is about double the increase in atmospheric CO₂.
CO₂ is good for life. We should be proud to take credit for the one thing we do right for the environment.
That would surely depend on the depth of water at the seep site:
https://www.sciencealert.com/a-magical-bubbling-underwater-spring-is-carbon-dioxide-seeping-through-the-ocean-floor
Not to mention ocean “overturning” and “upwelling” etc.
Javier,
Are you simply saying that this specific variable is too small to matter; or that this is not even a variable?
Not so! Deep waters up-well in the equatorial zone because of winds and high rates of evaporation. This is confirmed by OCO-2 maps of CO2 out-gassing. Deep water also up-wells along the western coasts of North and South America. It is a particular problem for the Monterey Bay Aquarium (Calif.) where the oxygen content and pH have a high-frequency variation from the water up-welling along the Monterey Bay submarine canyon. The changes are available online since they started monitoring it.
Besides out-gassing, the dissolved CO2 changes the partial pressure differential, inhibiting dissolving CO2 from the air, thus encouraging a net increase in the atmospheric concentration.
I had a similar question, Nick. Are all seamounts active volcanoes emitting CO2? I don’t know, but I suspect not, given the fact there are many extinct volcanoes on the continents we can see.
About your last point, c’mon Nick, correlation is not causation.
The causation is obvious. We put that CO2 directly in the air. We know how much, and we can account for it. And sure enough, what appears in the air tracks the amount we put in.
So do postal rates in the U.S.
And ice cream sales track children’s drownings. I suppose it is plausible that stomach cramps from eating ice cream before swimming is responsible for the drownings. There must have been some reason for my mother insisting that I wait exactly one hour after eating before going swimming.
You put a gallon of water in a bucket. You then find there is a gallon of water in the bucket. But “correlation is not causation”?
Your analogy stinks. That is not correlation. That is measurements of what occurs in the bucket.
I agree with Jim that it is a very poor analogy. You have only one source and no outlet or sink. It is obvious that whatever method you used to fill the 1-gallon bucket was responsible for it being filled. I propose a similar but different and more realistic analogy:
Suppose the only bucket you have is an old rusty one with several holes (sinks) in it. You drag over a small diameter garden hose and start filling the bucket. To your dismay you discover that the water from the hose (source) is leaking out nearly as fast as you put it in. You shut off the water and go looking for a larger hose. After finding one, you connect both hoses (sources) to the supply, and to your delight, observe that the bucket is filling, albeit slowly. In your impatience, you run in the house a couple times and get a couple of cups of water that you also add. (Episodic volcanic CO2 emissions).
Now the philosophical question (actually, semantics) is, “Which hose is primarily responsible for increasing the depth of the water in the bucket? The small hose that could barely keep up with the leaks, or the larger hose that allowed the bucket to be filled?” Note that the ‘small’ hose in the real world only amounts to about 4% of the annual flux, the ‘big’ hose.
I asked a question two days ago about which of the two hoses was primarily responsible for filling the rusty bucket. Are you just going to ignore it?
But why would volcanic emissions be suddenly increasing?
Reread and try to comprehend. The writeup made no such claim.
The research identified the probability that CO2 emissions was grossly underestimated from the beginning.
“The writeup made no such claim.”
The question remains. We’ve been putting CO2 directly in the air. The ppm CO2 has changed from stable to rise rapidly in proportion to our burning. Volcanic emissions may contribute to the stable component, but not to the recent rise.
The Law Dome C ice core strongly suggests that there is a several hundred-year lag in CO2 changes after the temperature changes. Why are we seeing the changes almost immediately?
The tests for a spurious correlation are to either de-trend a time-series or take the first-derivative (or consecutive differences). When one does that, the apparent correlation disappears. That suggests that your beloved ‘proof’ is spurious.
Deflection without answering the offered question.
Despite the importance of CO2 in the atmosphere, there are still few direct measurements of CO2 flux, whether from anthropogenic or natural sources. Nor are there many studies of stable isotopes in Volcanic CO2 and certainly no comparison between volcanically active regions.
“They are just topography.”
Wrong.
Go to any oceanographic science website and you will find that volcanism is a major factor. They seem to like being located at the edges of tectonic plates or at mid-plate hotspots,
“Seamounts are typically formed from extinct volcanoes …”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seamount
If they aren’t formed from volcanoes, then how do you propose that a conical feature arises on the deep sea floor? Pubescent acne?
This reminds of the ‘OCO2’ orbiting observatory* that was supposed to track the various point sources of emissions, and then they turned out not to be quite the places that were expected. Is that correct? Doesn’t seem to have been used for this work in the Caribbean Sea.
*”OCO-2 is an exploratory science mission designed to collect space-based global measurements of atmospheric CO2 with the precision, resolution, and coverage needed to characterize sources and sinks (fluxes)…” https://ocov2.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/
I think a lot of people with preconceived notions were surprised and disappointed when OCO-2 didn’t support their ideas. Very little has been published since the first world map presented at the AGU meeting.
“Very little has been published since the first world map presented at the AGU meeting.”
Yes, it’s almost as if NASA is trying to hide something.
OCO-2 who?
Much thanks to Messrs. Spencer & Abbott for these on-point responses.
Checking the website (JPL / NASA) —
https://ocov2.jpl.nasa.gov/whats-new-oco-2/
— which has a neat page of brief press-releases, ~ nine (9) dated in the past four (4) months alone.
But many of them didn’t appear to use primarily the infrared spectrometer / imaging capability.
Surprised – perplexed
After nearly 11 years in operation, they’re still talking about its primary mission-as-advertised as a work-in-progress rather than an ongoing capability. Example:
January 30, 2025Detecting CO2 emissions from small point sourcesHow well can current sensors detect emissions from small point sources? A new study looks at the detection limit of OCO-2 Targets and OCO-3 SAMs for quantifying emissions from coal power plants, a Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) facility and oil sands extraction and processing facilities.
Read the article: Quantifying CO2 Emissions From Smaller Anthropogenic Point Sources Using OCO-2 Target and OCO-3 Snapshot Area Mapping Mode Observations >
Early in the program, there were numerous maps that the public could observe and use. They all disappeared in favor of just raw data that often take resources the average amateur scientist doesn’t have at their disposal.
It appears that the unstated assumption is that small point sources are the only thing worth worrying about and they can just ignore the natural sources (and variations in them that dwarf anthropogenic sources) like the Amazon and Congo watersheds, which were a bit of a surprise to most.
The author concludes by asking, “if we’re underestimating volcanic CO2 by this much, what else are we missing”? Answer: Heat.
If the IPCC, NASA, and NOAA were actually interested in the science of El Nino’s they would have directed funding to monitoring the ocean temperatures at depth in the small area where El Nino’s form instead of avoiding it like the plague because it doesn’t fit their CO2 as the climate control knob narrative.
CO2 from ‘fossil fuel” emissions are taxable, whereas CO2 and hot water from subsea volcanoes, vents and plate tectonics are not. This makes a difference for grant and funding dependent agencies, universities, and other organizations. The TAO/TRITON buoy system does provide valuable data on sea surface temperatures and some subsurface conditions, but there are gaps in deeper and more localized measurements where El Niño events originate.
The Tonga-Kermadec Trench lies approximately 500–1,000 kilometers east-northeast of Fiji, depending on the specific location along the trench. The trench is part of the Ring of Fire and is one of the most geologically active regions in the Pacific. The warm water generated at this source area then spreads across the central and eastern Pacific. The Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai eruption site is located approximately 700 kilometers east-northeast of Fiji. This direction places the eruption site within the Tonga-Kermadec volcanic arc.
spot on.
Let’s assume for a moment that the law of conservation isn’t a thing and human CO2 emissions really do disappear and amount to nothing and that these previously unknown volcanoes have come to life coincidently at the same time humans began emitting, at the same rate, and with the same cumulative amount.
Why did nature suddenly start belching CO2 at a rate that data shows to be unprecedented even during the PETM?
When will it stop and relax back to its long term average?
What will the final level be when it stops?
Should we start planning for 5000+ ppm of CO2 like it was during the Cambrian period?
Because she did, if it happened. Seriously, nobody has the faintest notion of why these things occur, and the future states of the atmosphere, aquasphere and lithosphere are completely unpredictable (any better than a smart 12 year old can do, anyway).
Not to worry, adding CO2 to the atmosphere makes maximum temperatures slightly lower, so some people might be happy. Plant life certainly will.
Nature wins in the end, anyway. Adapt or die seems like a fair strategy.
We would be very fortunate if 800 ppm were reached, but that is not likely.
“Should we start planning for 5000+ ppm of CO2….. “
1000ppm would be a nice start……
Plant life would flourish !!
And we all know it makes no difference to the weather or climate..
The other best thing about ~ 1,000-ppm ?
It’s a 0.1% (aka 0,1 per cent) solution. No more scary ‘ppm’ talk.
A Zero-Point-One Percent SOLUTION does sound like ‘a nice start‘, a first step on the long road —
Back to the Garden (true greening, let the deserts bloom);
Toward restored ocean fertility (which also needs trace minerals Fe, phosphorus …);
And toward free-flowing seas, the escape-route from the ~ 3-Myr Ice Age!
Any such a Grand Restoration of the Biosphere may require centuries, at the present rate, especially if most of humanity ( population ~10^10 strong, that’s 10-billion) remain excluded from the project. A worthy mission would be to let them participate fully … why not?
R. B. Fuller (1895 – 1983 A.D.) wrote & talked & taught all about this, decades ago. No need for any other Grand Vision, even as plenty of invention in every field of study will be required to bring it about, across all climes, from Tropics to Arctics, from the high mountains down to the continental shelves and across the vast seas i.e. the Great Deep.
It is easily explained if warming is driving the biogenic production of CO2 as is the case with the seasonal variations. When COVID caused a decline in the relatively small anthropogenic flux, there was no discernible decline in global temperatures even at the monthly temporal resolution.
[ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/anthropogenic-co2-and-the-expected-results-from-eliminating-it/ ]
On the other hand, during El Niño years, warming resulted in an increased peak in the Northern Hemisphere (MLO) Spring peak (see Fig. 3):
[ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/11/contribution-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-to-changes-in-atmospheric-concentrations/ ]
If things don’t make sense, examine your unstated assumptions.
Anthony’s focus was on volcanism being the source of CO2, but yeah we can expand that to include biogenic production as well.
The question still remains. Why now? And why at a rate that appears to be unprecedented?
Why is a mouse?
I don’t know. I also don’t know what a mouse has to do with volcanic and biogenic sources and why they suddenly increased so dramatically.
We don’t have evidence submarine CO2 emissions have increased dramatically. We have just discovered that the potential sources of marine CO2 have increased dramatically. What we also have evidence for is that CO2 can be released continuously, even from dormant volcanoes, with episodic increases. The increase in dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) can be coming from either anthropogenic sources, submarine volcanoes, or a combination of both. We only have measurements for the anthro’ sources; much of the assumed ocean behavior is derived from models of unknown veracity. We have further assumed that submarine volcanic sources are negligible because sampling of terrestrial sources show terrestrial sources are negligible. Because it is not a perfect correlation between anthro’ sources and the increase in the ocean DIC, we can’t be certain that the models and SWAGS are properly accounting for all the DIC.
What Anthony is properly suggesting is that we take into consideration the new expanded data about seamounts and see if the assumptions the climatology community has been working under still make sense, or if there are other ways to reasonably interpret the sparse and sometimes contradictory data. That is, if seamounts are much more abundant than previously assumed, why aren’t they having more of an influence than was previously assumed?
Undoubtedly some seamounts emit CO2. But perhaps their biggest effect is that of local ocean heating and subsequent outgassing.
There are some people who think volcanic heat under the ocean doesn’t cause any warming…
… but a trace level of CO2 does.
Quite bizarre non-thinking.
So what? The earth’s plants remain starved for more CO2 and the source does not matter. Arguing anthropogenic vs. natural source is beside the point, especially since the warming potential of CO2 diminishes logarithmically with each addition.
And there are localities like Long Valley Caldera (Calif.) that are emitting sufficient CO2 to suffocate trees, and the National Forest Service closed a camp ground out of an abundance of caution to prevent the same thing from happening to people.
The Ngorongoro Caldera (Tanzania) is known for the large amounts of CO2 that it releases, which sometimes collects in depressions.
I doubt that these dormant(?) calderas have been sampled. From what I have read I get the impression that it is active volcanoes that were sampled by the USGS to provide an estimate for volcanic CO2 emissions.
Re ‘Emissions from Calderas of Volcano(e)s — dormant(?)‘
Oh my!
I have wondered for some time why one of the places where we measure the increasing amount of CO2 is on Hawaii and on a dormant volcano. I also note there is an erupting volcano there. I dont know anywhere near enough about the science of all that. But is it another climate alarmist scam?
Mauna Loa is on of the longest active volcanic sites in the world. Kilauea Volcano has been erupting and emitting for a substantial length of time. One would hope the scientists were aware of this and took it into account. On the other hand, they state they think the seasonal variations are due to growth and decay of local flora and I have seen no mention of change in ocean temperatures accounted for.
It is interesting that a trace gas that is claimed to have an atmospheric residency of decades to hundreds or thousands of years can have its concentration vary monthly.
The residence time is 4 years. [IPCC AR6 WGI Annex VII pg. 2237]
It is the adjustment time that is on the order of hundreds or thousands of years.
Those are two different concepts.
Your link seems to be broken. Please expand on what you mean by “adjustment time.”
Yeah. I’m not sure what went wrong there. Let’s try that again. [IPCC AR6 WGI Annex VII pg. 2237]
In a nutshell…
Residence time or turnover time is the amount of time a specific molecule is exchanged. It is calculated as T = M/S where T is time, M is the total mass of the reservoir, and S is the removal rate. For example, when M = 800 GtC and S = 200 GtC/yr then T = 4 years.
Adjustment time or response time is the amount of time it takes an instantaneous pulse input into a reservoir to decay. For example, when M = 800 GtC, S = 200 GtC/yr, I = 190 GtC/yr, and P = 800 GtC where I is the preexisting input rate and P is the instantaneous pulse then Tadjustment = P / (S – I) = 80 years while simultaneously Tresidence = M/S = 4 years. It is important to note that the adjustment time can be infinite if input and output rates S and I are equal such that no mass is being removed from the reservoir.
It’s the adjustment time that matters in regards to the GHE because the GHE is proportional to the mass of carbon in the atmosphere; not the specific composition of that mass. The GHE does not care which specific molecules are in the atmosphere; only that there are molecules in the atmosphere.
It’s the residence time that matters for radiocarbon dating because dating requires knowing the specific composition of the mass. You have to know the ratio of 14C-to-12C and how it changes over time to accurately date a sample.
In the alarmist community, it seems that the concern is centered around the claim that the longevity of CO2 allows it to accumulate and therefore increase its effect long-term. It seems that 80 years adjustment time does not explain the apparent long lag-time observed in the Law Dome C ice cores.
I think that Sparta Nova 4 raises a valid point in questioning the seasonal variation, for either a resident time or adjustment time.
You state “It’s the residence time that matters for radiocarbon dating because dating requires knowing the specific composition of the mass.” It seems to me that the residence time is also important in the argument about 13C/12C ratio ‘proving’ that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic. Indeed, it seems that the residence time (4-years) should be a concern in any discussion of isotopic fractionation. I haven’t seen it discussed.
80 years was just an example. The actual figure is different and involves piecewise partitioning so while you may see a single figure for adjustment time it doesn’t really tell the whole story.
Anyway, yeah, residence time is important anytime composition (like 14C/12C or 13C/12C ratios) is considered. This is obviously true when using the composition to fingerprint which sources must have contributed to changes in carbon content in the atmosphere. I’m just saying it isn’t important for the GHE because GHE doesn’t care whether the molecules are 14C, 13C, or 12C or whether their ratios are changing. The effect the same either way.
It’s an interesting article per se, but it’s indirectly supporting the narrative that there’s too much
CO2 in the atmosphere whether man-made or not. There isn’t. It could even become a rationale
that we should try to compensate that by further reducing emissions … forget it.
Perhaps, but my read was, if we got this wrong, what else have we missed?
In other words, the science definitely is not settled.
“Is Human-Driven Climate Narrative Crumbling?”Not at all. Facts and science have no bearing on the AGW narrative except when they can be twisted and perverted to further the narrative.
Interesting thing – the mid-ocean ridges actually divide the floating global crust into at least two separate portions. I wonder if that prevents continents from drifting from portion to portion, or does one section of the ocean ridge network fill in, and the crust to rip apart somewhere else.
There seem to be “hot-spots” in the underlying mantle, so there might be “cold-spots”, which might seal mid-ocean ridges. Irrelevant to anything at all of course.
Sorry to waste your time.
Sections of continental crust are generally held in place over portions of lower or oceanic crust, Pieces of crust are added to the continents as they collide; rather like an elk or moose on the front of a steadily moving semi, or a smashed up auto on the front of a train. The lofty Himalayas are formed from the Indian subcontinent smashing into the Eurasian Plate. Parts of the Pacific Northwest were formed at the latitude of Baja California, and trundled north along lateral faults similar to the more recent San Andreas!
The movement of the plates and continents over geologic timescales is a fascinating, slow-motion ballet; formed by masses and forces beyond the imagination of most. It makes concerns about a minor trace gas look rather infantile or venal by comparison!
In my opinion, with limited knowledge of oceanographic sciences, the sea floor is something that contributes to weather and therefore climate and should not be dismissed out of hand, like Mann did with the Medieval Warming.
Mann didn’t dismiss the MWP. His most discussed work MBH98/99 is consistent with the MWP. And Mann was one of the first to hypothesize a cause of the MWP. [Mann 2002]
This is interesting, but I can imagine an awkward question posed by an alarmist; Volcano eruptions and emissions are surely random but the atmospheric CO2 measurement from Mauna Loa shows a steadily rising level since human emissions got going whereas if volcanoes were a significant factor wouldn’t the level of CO2 vary up & down much more over time ?
How much of the rising CO2 level is due to increased insolation and subsequent warming since the Little Ice Age!? The scare over Global Weirding is just a convenient excuse for the ruling elites to amass more wealth and power; aided by their sycophants, pets and whores!
Not if CO2 has the longevity in the atmosphere claimed by alarmists. Besides, the atmosphere can draw on the oceans, acting as a buffer, because of changes in CO2 partial pressure. The partial pressure sign determines the direction of movement of diffusing gases. There is far more CO2 in the oceans than in the atmosphere and the (bi)carbonate buffering stabilizes the pH and provides CO2 if the pH lowers.
See the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjerrum_plot
The reason that climate models were made is that what happens in the atmosphere and oceans is controlled by several feedback loops that are impossible to intuitively understand because which loop(s) dominate(s) is determined by the net results of loops with different power.
And you know volcanic emissions are “random” how? You assume so. No actual data, just an assumption.
Par for the course.
What’s CO2 got to do with anything? You exhale some with every breath. Are you scared of it?
Don’t be.
Something like 20,000 ppm per exhale.
How much of volcanic CO2 emissions happening on the far side of the planet diffuse to Mauna Loa and at what rate and how much is absorbed along the way?
The local volcanoes do present an opportunity, but again, amount, rate of emissions, wind direction, etc. all effect what is measured.
Just as a thought experiment, if the Kilauea eruption only amounted to 0.01 ppm, would it even be detected? If 10,000 equivalent volcanoes across the planet all erupted but at different times, how much would that affect the station at 11,000 feet. After all, CO2 is heavier than H2O, N2 and O2 and has a “tendency to sink.” It is more complex, of course and volcanic eruptions go up thousands of feet. Just a thought experiment.
We’ve always been “flying blind on how much CO2 is truly “anthropogenic.””
Estimates and assumptions are not “data.”
What if it were discovered that submarine volcanoes make a significant contribution to global warming not only through CO2 but also through heat coming from the Earth’s interior?
Hypothesis: The water is heated at the seafloor and then years later reaches the ocean surface, for example, during an El Niño, where it warms the air masses above.
Yes, why not?
That’s what the Pacific-Rim geologists have been arguing, for some time now, if one understands them correctly:
Submarine volcanic eruptions: (A) release vapors, some of which are released in gaseous form at the surface; (B) transfer heat (as in ‘ENSO’ events) from the magma flows; which also contain (C) aqueous (soluble) minerals, like iron carbonates, phosphates etc., that are transported upward into the ‘photic zone’ where they re-fertilize the sea surface … think plankton, kelp forests, fisheries … all replenished.
CO2, from volcanoes, humans or whatever, does not cause any measurable warming.
If “the science was settled” decades ago, why did they hide this information?
“Settled science” can be so unsettling!
STORY TIP
https://scitechdaily.com/volcanoes-send-secret-signals-through-trees-and-nasa-satellites-can-see-them/
This thread supports Anthony’s conjecture that submarine volcanoes may emit more CO2 than is commonly assumed and points out that it may be difficult to measure even for terrestrial volcanoes, let alone submarine volcanoes.
An additional take away is that plants ‘like’ CO2, and appear to be limited by its availability.
A philosophical question is whether it is short-sighted and selfishly anthropocentric to put human concerns, such as losing their beach front property, over the welfare of all life on the planet.
Perfect! (And what timing…)