How much carbon dioxide does a volcano emit?

[bartman (Bart)]

THIS IS NOT A THREAD IN REGARDS TO CARBON TAX ET AL AND NOT POLITICALLY MINDED!
[If I asked this question 20 years ago , I would not have had to put the statement above.......]

I just received an email regarding the amount of carbon dioxide a volcano emits compared to what we as a human race have emitted.
I am a bit skeptic of this email and would like a non biased, scientific ( I guess that goes hand in hand) answer.
So the email states that 'Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991 and spewed more greenhouse gases( over a year) into the atmosphere than the entire human race in its entire 40 million [?] years on Earth'.
It also stated that ' prescribed forest burning in Victoria alone puts more Co2 into the atmosphere than all power generated in Oz in one year'.

The email is not from a scientific background.

The question is : Are the two statements True or a load of bunkum?
And I would love a reason too..... + or -

I do have my own thoughts about the validity of the above....
but.......,
any thoughts would be most appreciated .....

Cheers
Bartman

[Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)]

The originator certainly is not from a scientific background.
40 Million years?
Blimey.

Good question tho'.
Lots I would think.
Also sulphur, CO and other nasties.

I've wondered about this too.
The eruption of the Tibetan plateau DID pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans have or will.
(Seems we made out just fine).
But the Tibetan Plateau is massive (easily the size of Tibet) and you'd need a good many volcanoes to equal it.

[bartman (Bart)]

Originally Posted by Waxing_Gibbous

The originator certainly is not from a scientific background.
40 Million years?
Blimey.

thats why I put the [?] there....
But yeah, I thought it was a question worth asking even if the email wasn't that sound.....
Cheers Peter,
Bartman
PS
Just to add a question.......how does a volcano erupting cause Co2 ?????

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

There was another thread included a link about CO2 and Volcanoes.

I originally thought the volcano emitted the same amount per as would the whole population of the world. But it seems it is a myth and that all the volcanoes in the world only produce approx less than 1% of the total carbon output. Still a lot but not to be considered as a major contributor.

http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/s...&postcount=141

[SkyViking (Rolf)]

It would be nice to finally get this one straight, but unfortunately this nonsense is so often quoted by AGW sceptics.
The scientific facts seem to be pretty much the opposite, here is one example:

http://news.discovery.com/earth/volc...te-110627.html

Originally Posted by Discovery News

In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions.
....
"The main reason, I think, that this myth persists," Gerlach said: "First of all, the emissions are extremely spectacular. When people see volcanic eruptions on television and it's awesome, and it's very easy for people to imagine that huge amounts of CO2 are being emitted to the atmosphere."
"However, these spectacular volcanic explosions that are so stunning on TV last only a few hours," he added. "They are ephemeral. In contrast, the sources of anthropogenic CO2 (smokestacks, exhaust pipes, etc) are comparatively unspectacular, commonplace, and familiar, and in addition they are ubiquitous, ceaseless, and relentless. They emit CO2 24/7."
...
In yet another comparison, Gerlach reported that in order for volcanic emissions to match those made by humans, the May 18, 1980, Mount St. Helens eruption would need to happen every 2.5 hours. The June 15, 1991, Mount Pinatubo eruption would need to occur every 12.5 hours.

[[1ponders] (Paul)]

This very question was discussed with a volcanologist on ABC Radio a couple of weeks. The example they gave was the volcano in Iceland that stopped all the European air traffic produced 0.01% of a years CO2 out put from all the cars in the world.

[marki]

Originally Posted by [1ponders]

This very question was discussed with a volcanologist on ABC Radio a couple of weeks. The example they gave was the volcano in Iceland that stopped all the European air traffic produced 0.01% of a years CO2 out put from all the cars in the world.

Thats it we need to tax Finland

Mark

[bartman (Bart)]

Thanks guys for the info and links!!!!
Mark ,I think Iceland in is a bit of financial trouble atm.....so we wont see a cent
Bartman

[Hagar (Doug)]

Lots....... you don't have smoke without fire....... You don't have fire without CO2, SO2, CO.

[renormalised (Carl)]

All the volcanoes on the planet put out about 1% of the CO2 that is created through human activity, as a normal yearly amount. Although, a major volcanic eruption can put out an appreciable amount in comparison to the human input, even something as titanic as the eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera would be hard pressed to equal the 27.7GT of CO2 we pumped out in the last year or so. Most of that amount is sequestered into sinks but something like 6-7GT a year stays in the atmosphere.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

I'm glad the volcano myth is being slowly knocked on the head.

Originally Posted by Waxing_Gibbous

....

I've wondered about this too.
The eruption of the Tibetan plateau DID pump more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans have or will.
(Seems we made out just fine).
But the Tibetan Plateau is massive (easily the size of Tibet) and you'd need a good many volcanoes to equal it.

I'll disagree here. The Tibetan plateau did not erupt. The Himalayas, including the Tibetan plateau are the result of uplft from the collision of the Indian and Eurasian plates. Certainly there is volcanism associated with this along the northern margin where there are a few andesitic volcanoes. However only a tiny part of the high ground in the region is volcanoes. Most of it is just rocks that have been pushed up as the Eurasian plate has ridden over the Indian plate.

I don't doubt that the associated eruptions put CO2 into the atm, just as they do further west through the middle east and into Europe and also the west coast of the Americas, but I don't know how the quantites compare. On the other hand the uplift exposed a lot of fresh rock to weathering. A major weathering mechanism involves the formation of carbonic acid from CO2 and H2O and so it removes CO2 from the atm. I think the general concensus is that the uplift actually decreased the atm CO2 concentration. Of course, whatever did happen happened slowly, at least by human reckoning.

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

I'm glad the volcano myth is being slowly knocked on the head.



I'll disagree here. The Tibetan plateau did not erupt. The Himalayas, including the Tibetan plateau are the result of uplft from the collision of the Indian and Eurasian plates. Certainly there is volcanism associated with this along the northern margin where there are a few andesitic volcanoes. However only a tiny part of the high ground in the region is volcanoes. Most of it is just rocks that have been pushed up as the Eurasian plate has ridden over the Indian plate.

I don't doubt that the associated eruptions put CO2 into the atm, just as they do further west through the middle east and into Europe and also the west coast of the Americas, but I don't know how the quantites compare. On the other hand the uplift exposed a lot of fresh rock to weathering. A major weathering mechanism involves the formation of carbonic acid from CO2 and H2O and so it removes CO2 from the atm. I think the general concensus is that the uplift actually decreased the atm CO2 concentration. Of course, whatever did happen happened slowly, at least by human reckoning.

Please read some real science and do not regurgitate myths.

Bert

[PCH (Paul)]

I'll say one thing Bert, you'll never be accused of being light-hearted

[jenchris (Jennifer)]

I think the problem is statistics - the greenies say the CO2 is 1% the gainsayers say wrongly that it's more.
What nobody seems to relate to is that the GREENHOUSE gases are what we're talking about - they include a lot of other gases - not just CO2 -flourides - bromides - sulphides - phosphides- I'm no chemical engineer but the stuff is a mixture that puts a cigarette to shame. Plus it chucks out reduced limestone (cement) that releases CO2 once it gets wet but has no effect on a sensor as it comes out of the volcano.
It's not as deleterious as a bunch of humans no doubt, but if you add the
cascade effect of melted icecaps (which also releases bound up CO2) and the general coating of reflective surfaces like snow it's a pretty it has a lot of effects we don't add in.

No one has approached the Indonesians who produce a bit of CO2 with their slash and burn - nor the Amazonian forest defilers. I reckon that area should be a good starting point rather than a nation of 18 million who produce .001% of the world's pollution for .2% of the world output (figures courtesy of my imagination).

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by marki

Thats it we need to tax Finland

Mark

No but it is this sort of rubbish science (along with a lot more) that is affecting the opinions of a significant proportion of Aussies that currently don't support putting a price on carbon...it's a muddied debate, for sure so, meeah, lets just move along, what happens - happens

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by PCH

I'll say one thing Bert, you'll never be accused of being light-hearted

No just a highly intelligent man frustrated by the scientific ignorance that is being used to truncate the climate change debate, that's all

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Please read some real science and do not regurgitate myths.

Bert

Actually, Bert, Dave has it correct. The Tibetan Plateau is due to the subduction of the Indian Plate under the Eurasian Plate and that uplift and subsequent erosion is one of the major driving mechanisms in the lowering of CO2 levels from the normal Cenozoic levels of CO2 to the levels found in pre-industrial times. The volcanism which did occur during the subduction episode wasn't all that widespread and was rather brief, because the Indian Subcontinent collided into Eurasia very quickly and then underplated the region instead of sinking down and melting. It's the reason why the Himalayas are so high and are getting higher. It's also why Tibet is so high and still rising.

However, what happened then and what is happening now are not related. The yearly input of CO2 into the atm by volcanoes is nowhere near as large as the anthropogenic input, even though the source is much larger and more is emitted over long periods of time, those emissions are balanced by the absorption and sequestering of CO2 into carbonate deposits and plant materials.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Please read some real science and do not regurgitate myths.

Bert

I received D's and HD's in geology and palaeoclimate subjects, though not, to be fair, in physics, for regurgitating these 'myths'. If you would at least tell me which part is a 'myth' I'll know which professor to correct.

Originally Posted by strongmanmike

No just a highly intelligent man frustrated by the scientific ignorance that is being used to truncate the climate change debate, that's all

Who the hell is trying to truncate the climate change debate?? That's a slander Mike. I don't know how anything I've said can be construed as being denial of AGW. It sounds like both of you have the bull by the horns and have gone off half-cocked.

[Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

I'm glad the volcano myth is being slowly knocked on the head.



I'll disagree here. The Tibetan plateau did not erupt. The Himalayas, including the Tibetan plateau are the result of uplft from the collision of the Indian and Eurasian plates. Certainly there is volcanism associated with this along the northern margin where there are a few andesitic volcanoes. However only a tiny part of the high ground in the region is volcanoes. Most of it is just rocks that have been pushed up as the Eurasian plate has ridden over the Indian plate.

Yes "Eruption" was a poor choice of words.
"Up-oozing" is probably better.
I watched this on some respectable science type-program which wasn't actually about vulcanism, but the Chinese annexation of Tibet.
It seems they did loads more Geophysical surveys than any-one previously and found HUGE areas that had been formed by 'up-oozing' originally thought to have been the products of the collision with India.
I wish I could remember the show, cuz it was very interesting.

At any rate.
All this CO2 we and our volcanoes are busy pumping into the air isn't just sittting there, it's being absorbed and re-used and really hasn't made any appreciable impact on the actual percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere (0.04%?).
There was far more, back when you had to fight a T-Rex to get to the office and Life was positively everywhere.

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

Who the hell is trying to truncate the climate change debate?? That's a slander Mike. I don't know how anything I've said can be construed as being denial of AGW. It sounds like both of you have the bull by the horns and have gone off half-cocked.

Sorry Dave, I was refering to the original subject of the thread, lots of myths going around that sound believeable to the average Joe, this is what is frustrating Bert I think, I wasn't refering to you .

Mike