Myth 1 - Volcanoes release more CO2 than man

[sasguru]

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

[The Lone Gunman]

How the hell can anyone reconcile

Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time[my emphasis].

With but that is a lot less than Man.
Go on then SAS how many active spouts are there on the deep ocean floor? What is there actual output?

[sasguru]

As we are doing selective quotes out of context, here's mine (my emphasis):

It's a simple question with a complicated answer

Doesn't the link go on to estimate the amount caused by volcanoes and conclude it is a small fraction of the man-made?

Weren't we told on the "Swindle" program that man-made emissions are dwarfed by volcanic ones? Where did they get evidence for that statement?

[The Lone Gunman]

As we are doing selective quotes out of context, here's mine (my emphasis):

It's a simple question with a complicated answer

Doesn't the link go on to estimate the amount caused by volcanoes and conclude it is a small fraction of the man-made?

Weren't we told on the "Swindle" program that man-made emissions are dwarfed by volcanic ones? Where did they get evidence for that statement?

Dont know what the swindle program said, I never watched it, but you can't take a report seriously that states it does not know how big one of the major factors in its comparison is. Even if it is fookin complicated.

One of the links seems to be broken so I can't see the report in the reference section.

[sasguru]

The point of these posts is to debunk the myths the Swindle program was peddling as statements of fact. Next episode will be the relationship between CO2 and temperature which Swindle claimed were related in the opposite way.
It's a good exercise as I learn more each day. However if the Swindle program is right, I will find out and admit it.

[The Lone Gunman]

The point of these posts is to debunk the myths the Swindle program was peddling as statements of fact. Next episode will be the relationship between CO2 and temperature which Swindle claimed were related in the opposite way.
It's a good exercise as I learn more each day. However if the Swindle program is right, I will find out and admit it.

Fair enough, but I am not letting you get away with that one as scientific fact.
There are lots of sources on the web saying similar, but all are based on estimates of undersea volcanic activity and estimates of actual volcanoe outputs based on samples taken from miles away.

I still have an open mind on this subject, but am far from convinced of the "man made" argument.

[Swamp Thing]

sas, haven't you done this volcano thread once before???

[sasguru]

sas, haven't you done this volcano thread once before???

Not me, guv

[VectraMan]

Isn't science great? One scientist states one thing as fact and everybody believes them. Then another scientist says exactly the opposite. Which is perhaps the biggest flaw in the global warming argument: why should we believe anything scientists say is fact?

Did we have this one (about the 800 year lag of CO2 and warming):

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-in-ice-cores/

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming.

[xoggoth]

Good find sas.

That point about volcanos was one of the only two supposedly scientific arguments on the program I found convincing. http://www.xoggoth.org/pages/bloggoth.html#c4gw