Posted on 04/25/2007 12:41:58 AM PDT by Omega Man II
Move to block emissions 'swindle' DVD
· Climate scientists say film misleads public · Wag TV producers reject 'contemptible gag attempt'
David Adam, environment correspondent
Wednesday April 25, 2007
The Guardian
Dozens of climate scientists are trying to block the DVD release of a controversial Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming is nothing to do with human greenhouse gas emissions.
Sir John Houghton, former head of the Met Office, and Bob May, former president of the Royal Society, are among 37 experts who have called for the DVD to be heavily edited or removed from sale. The film, the Great Global Warming Swindle, was first shown on March 8, and was criticised by scientists as distorted and misleading.
(Excerpt) Read more at environment.guardian.co.uk ...
I would say no
That 150x comes from this study which was done in 15 years ago in1992,
One thing stands out, they claim that land & ocean volcanoes put out equal amounts of CO2 which I would challenge,
Because since 1992 we discovered a hell of a lot more volcanic activity going on beneath the oceans, especially in the last couple of years.
For some recent examples see http://www.iceagenow.com/Ocean_Warming.htm
2 notable ones
Hydrothermal "Megaplume" Found in Indian Ocean
An enormous hydrothermal "megaplume" found in the Indian Ocean serves as a dramatic reminder that underwater volcanoes likely play an important role in shaping Earth's ocean systems, scientists report. The plume, which stretches some 43.5 miles (70 kilometers) long, appears to be active on a previously unseen scale. "In a nutshell, this thing is at least 10 times—or possibly 20 times—bigger than anything of its kind that's been seen before,"
And
The Fiery Face of the Arctic Deep
The Gakkel ridge is a gigantic volcanic mountain chain stretching beneath the Arctic Ocean. With its deep valleys 5,500 meter beneath the sea surface and its 5,000 meter high summits, Gakkel ridge is far mightier than the Alps..........one of the strongest hydrothermal activities ever seen at mid-ocean ridges were found.
And of course there's always the mid-Atlantic ridge which we learned more about since then, which I would bet puts out many times more by itself than all the land based volcanoes combined.
With all these new discoveries of underwater volcanoes it's not hard to picture that 150x man made vs volcanic gap being closed if not greatly exceeded.
As of now, nobody can say either way, though currently until we know more I don't think it's a good idea to use it as an argument, however I wouldn't concede it to the Liberals just yet.
If a man’s job depends on him not beleiving something, there is a pretty good chance he won’t.
The claim that for scientists it is “all about the money” is a “grand left-wing conspiracy theory” that is as ridiculous as the GRWC. It is the tin foil recluse of those in denial and, for some reason, Rush Limbaugh.
Oooh someone on a global warming thread calling me deluded. That is so new and exciting I can hardly imagine it. Boy, you must nevr repeat anything you hear on talk radio. You sure are an independent thinker.
Exactly..and the original data are also in metric tons.
So after converting to short tons, the 6 billion short tons of carbon per year is multiplied by 3.67 to get the total of 33 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year from anthropogenic sources...FAR above the volcanic contribution, and growing.
You missed the point. Reread your post. You called yourself delusional.
So what oil company do I work for ? Fantasize all you want.
There are way more volcanoes under the ocean than on land. I think the ratio in your post is probably good.
But the CO2 that under-sea volcanoes emit do not make it into the atmosphere except through the ocean emission numbers.
Ocean CO2 emissions 90.0 billion tonnes (Carbon)
Ocean CO2 absorption 92.0 billion tonnes
Man-made CO2 emissions 7.0 bilion tonnes
Some have noted there are differences in the numbers quoted. Usually the data is quoted in “Tonnes of Carbon”. If it is quoted in “Tonnes of CO2”, it is about 4 times higher since now you have a carbon atom and two oxygen atoms in the atomic weight. You have to be careful with what they are measuring.
Usually just the Carbon numbers are used and the Carbon cycle is measured since oceans and plants convert CO2 into different Carbon molecules when they absorb CO2 but it gets converted back into CO2 when it is emitted. So you need to look at it as a complete Carbon cycle and using just the Carbon weights is a better way of lloking at the whole system.
Check my profile in point #5. There's a link to a site that lists the numerous errors in the show. Releasing the DVD might actually be a good teaching moment; professors could have their students research various errors in the show and demonstrate why there are wrong.
Side note: I'm probably going to be a way from FR at least a few days as work on stuff I actually get paid for. Its been fun poking my nose into this debate.
I'll be gone until the second week of May, too.
Actually, only if you're out of touch with reality, as the producer of this show apparently is.
Good chart, very useful...now I’m getting back to work...honest.
Note also that magmatic composition influences the gas composition, and many times diffusional flux through the flanks of volcanoes is not considered. All in all, though, the contribution from volcanic activity to the atmosphere is relatively small. Many volcanoes do emit large amounts of water vapor—a potent greenhouse gas—and I wonder if that is, perhaps, how the misconception about volcanic carbon dioxide arose.
And I was beginning to wonder if I were the only one who saw this.
Terry Gerlach is the volcanologist cited. Here's a more recent article with commentary from him...
Compared to man-made sources, though, volcanoes' contribution to climate change is minuscule, Gerlach said.The point is that while Mt. St. Helens is the largest polluter in the state of Washington for sulfur dioxide, its carbon dioxide impact is miniscule.
Mount St. Helens produces between 500 and 1,000 tons a day of carbon dioxide, he estimates.
Nothstein, of the state energy office, says the Centralia coal plant puts out about 28,000 tons a day. Statewide, automobiles, industries, and residential and business heating systems emit nearly 10 times that amount.
On a global scale, the difference is even more dramatic, said Gerlach, who often gets calls from power-plant operators and oil-company executives who believe nature is just as responsible for global warming as man. His answer always disappoints them.
"I tell them the amounts don't even come close and I usually never hear from them again."
Worldwide, people and their activities pump 26 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, he said. The total from volcanoes is about 200 million tons a year — or less than 1 percent of the man-made emissions.
But now that man's involved, we're pumping it into the atmosphere a lot faster than volcanoes ever did, with the possible exception of flood basalt emplacements like the Deccan or Siberian.
Wait a minute, tectonism may be having a lot more effects then raising CO2. Why do you assume it wasn't some other aspect of such events?
But if your right, shouldn't we see CO2 go up either before or at the same time as the temperature when such an event is to blame? Put another way: what is poking the bowling ball in this case?
Given the highest possible resolution of events when tectonism drives climate change (Paleozoic and Mesozoic, millions of years), temperature and CO2 vary in sync.
It is a Stalinist ploy to dismiss a priori the views of a group of people because they belong to a certain class.
Who gives a rat's behind what they believe? Their opinions should be analyzed for their scientific value and dismissed if found to be wrong. Their motives and beliefs are irrelevant.
But I'm not arguing land based volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans, all I said was that there's a hell of a lot of volcanic activity going on under the sea that as of now nobody can say how much CO2 they are releasing. But factor in these recent discoveries and that 150x man vs volcano number will come down. How much? Well until more information comes in nobody can say, it may or may not exceed man's output. So while Conservatives shouldn't use it as an argument against AGW because they don't know, at the same time Liberals don't know either so they also can not say it is wrong at this time.
Pray tell what this resolution is. More then 800 years or so?
1) There 750 bt (billion tons of carbon) in the air
2) Combustion and factories are tossing 5.5 bt a year into the air, and sucking in none. For a net gain of 5.5 per year.
3) Plants et al are sucking in 61 and coughing up 60, for a net suction of 1. Presumably this excess builds up as plant matter in the short term, but presumably must be lost into the earth in the long term if such an excess continues (not shown on diagram though). So net loss of 1 bt per year.
4) Land use sucks in 1.5 and expels .5, for a net loss of 1 bt per year.
5) The oceans suck in 92 and expel 90, for a net loss of 2 bt per year.
Total change per year then is 5.5 bt - 1 - 1 - 2 = 1.5 bt
But, without man's interference we would get a net loss of 3 (-2 for ocean, -1 for plants etc).
So if we could somehow remove man's interference from the system, we would have atmospheric carbon declining at twice the rate that it is currently increasing.
Looks like a dynamic system with the large exchanges in the oceans and plants being more important then our contribution. The system seems to already want to lower the CO2, and will likely be even more insistent as CO2 continues to increase in the short term.
I am finding the information you provide very helpful in reinforcing my view that the global warming skeptics are right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.