We hear so much about anthropogenic (a long word for human made) carbon emissions but what about those created naturally. Human emissions change the carbon balance by adding extra carbon dioxide into the air which was not there for millions of years, because it was stored underground. As human populations grow the vegetation resources of our world – especially the tropical jungles – get smaller and with them the ability to soak up so much carbon dioxide.
What about nature? It too draws up green house and climate change gases from deep inside the earth where they have been safely stored for millions of years and throws them into the air. I am talking about volcanoes.
Volcanoes emit carbon dioxide when they erupt. They also emit sulphur, water vapour carbon monoxide and other gases which do not have a benign effect on our climate. Mostly volcanoes provide water, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide.
The emissions can be terrible in a locality but usually the effect of emissions is tiny compared to man’s emissions by burning fossil fuel. Each year, nature, through volcanoes emit around three quarters of one percent of the carbon dioxide emissions that people create, so they are not in the grand calculations of emissions terribly significant. The figure is that of the University of North Dakota.
Of course you can have terribly large volcanic eruptions. In 1883 Krakatoa erupted and the volcanic ash and debris together with the effect of sulphur emitted by the volcano on high level clouds filtered out sunlight, which caused the lowering of average global temperatures by over 1 degree Celsius for five years. Fortunately for us these massive scale eruptions are few and far between.
I have been living for the past two weeks in the shadow of a volcano, in Mexico. It is called the Volcan de Fuego, is about 12,600 feet high and is still active. On some days you can see steam venting from it. Like most volcanoes it lives happily with the surrounding Mexican ranches and villages, proving a hard volcanic rock that is used in building and in making cooking ware. the rock is much harder than the volcanic pumic of Vesuvius or the volcanic rocks of Hawaii.
Some people think that volcanic activity contributes more carbon dioxide than man. It does not, by a long way. Volcanoes do not even come close to what we do. In fact even the terrible volcanic eruptions have had a relatively short term effect on our climate. Nature can cope with a few more emissions but not, it would seem emissions on the scale that six billion humans create.
Filed under: carbon emissions, climate change, global warming, weather | Tagged: krakatoa, sulphur dioxide, University of North Dakota, volcanoes, water vapour
I will look into the thermal panels because it seems a waste to let all that energy everyday zip by without harnessing it! I was worried about the waste until I saw a gentleman discussing a method of encasing it in glass (which he then put in a glass of water and drank from it) beads and then burying it very deep. I was impressed with his committment and he also mentioned that the equivilent waste per person per year would equal a volume the size of a dime. I doubt anyone would put the links together to join their SUV to their way of life unfortunately. I am a very conservative, capitalist , and though demonized by many think you would find we agree on 95% of things and the other 5% we disagree on is probably only the methods taken to get there not the actual destination. Thanks for the tip on the Thermal panels, I am researching now.
Robert,
In return you make a valid point. However, lowering emissions, better quality air & cleaner environments stand on their own without respect to Climate Change. By adding it to the Climate Change argument they get caught up in the enormous debate rather than being acted upon completely independent. As a 25 year military guy I would love to see us decrease our dependence on fossil fuels for one reason and that is to take the huge sums of cash that go to terrorist supporting states by way of petroleum purchases. How great it would be to say “Unfortunately the oil you are sitting on is now worth slightly more than the sand above it”. (I wish).
How great it would be to produce 80% or more of our electrical needs with modern Nuclear technology. I love Solar technology but the cost per Kilowatt hour is still too high. I would love to outfit my home but the costs are high and from what I read the PV panels decrease about 1% efficiency per year, ouch in 10 years and double ouch in 20 when they are paid off and you have to replace them?
I think the United States has done pretty well with regard to clean environment initiatives. I am offended by Climate Change restrictions that consign third world countries to inefficient energy production sources in the name of saving the environment. It is almost an imperialistic stance. I am concerned that the media does not give enough attention to those scientists who disagree with the IPCC findings and I believe the U.S. should lead the way and let others follow, not use any UN body for direction. The radical measures some would take would saddle the economy with huge costs and create an economy worse than it already is trying to affect Climate Change reversal by less than 1% in a century.
I think we will always try to be a cleaner society, let’s find an alternative to fossil fuels, let’s build modern nuclear reactors for electrical production. (Unfortunately when you use the word nuclear people imagine a little mushroom cloud in their back yard.) Thank you for your sane, non-rabid statements that are frequently forthcoming from others. I think we probably agree on more than we disagree as is almost always the case with opposing parties. BJ
Давно искала эту информацию, спасибо.
This is the most difficult of issues to get facts on. Each side makes claims that are opposed and yet both make sense taken in their context. To the extent that the sides refuse to accept certain truths, the masses are consigned to ignorance unless they wish to devote their rest of their time on earth studying the issue. When the NASA results that a year 2000 computer glitch caused temperatures to appear higher than actual and the global warming groups never mentioned that their data was flawed, that causes people like me to doubt the veracity of all their other facts. They seem disingenuous if not outright liars. There is certainly a lot of money for those willing to espouse the “theory” that the planet is heating up and we can stop it. That cannot be said for the other side. There is no free and open debate on this subject which takes it out of the scientific realm and makes it a purely political issue. Translation: it is now tainted and forever will be. When this cycle stops and the earth begins to cool just wait a few years and some unknown scientist will espouse a new “theory” on the global ice age and how we caused it. A few will debate it until it becomes a political theme. Then it will stop being science and become a political issue which will strip it of any credibility. One final note: Computer models do not make science. They do not predict the future, period. They assume things will remain on the same vector (which if it were true would make them valuable) which they don’t. Until a sane individual steps forward with little emotion and hard facts untainted by politics I will not jump on this or any other band wagon. If you’ve read this far, Thanks.
Thank you james! it is ridiculous to think that humans are the cause of global warming. it is nothing other than a global climate change due to the many phases of our planet. The polar ice sheets at either pole of the earth expand and contract because of variations in the Earth’s orbit known as Milankovitch cycles. The last expansion of the polar ice sheets took place about 18,000 years ago. So humans have been on earth for around 200,000 years right? how could humans be the sole purpose of a global temperature increase in the climate when the industrial revolution and output of all these carbon emissions didnt begin until around the 18th century
James
1. This is a science based essay; if it is typical then perhaps it is typical of the current view of scientists about climate change
2. I have a solar panel company but it does not profit from global warming – no one does
3. I would be very interested to learn (a) which volcano are you referring to and (b) which scientists? If it had acted as you claim curret co2 readings would be at least 600 ppm and not 485ppm
4 I thinbk that the present scientific consensus includes but of your view – that the climate has always chnaged and will always change BUT the increased carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions make the rate of change much much faster than ever before – so fat that plants animals and man will not be able to adapt to it.
Robert
this is a typical pro global warming article written by someone who is mostlikely making a profit from it or having some type of personal ties to global warming. if it wasen’t for global warming some people would be nothing. humm??? kinda like that guy that lost the presidency race? not to mention his home uses over 30 times the regular household amount of energy. Have u forgot to mention that plenty of other scientist have stated that the volcano in south america that just erupted not to long ago, had put out almost twice as much carbon emissions in one eruption than the united states had put out sence the industrial revolution. this world is going to do what ever it wants to do and theirs not a thing we can do about it.. we have scientific proof of an ice age and why do we tend to think that its never going to happen during this time period of man ?? we have just thrived in a perfect climate. it can and mostlikely will change regaurdless of our emissions!
Mark
I think that you are right; perhaps it is the unbounded optimism of himanity which makes us believe what we want to believe, and like you I suspect that it is this optimism that makes people think that a new perfume will improve their social life or that gloabl warming will be coped with, somehow, without affecting the way we live now.
People do change – look how smoking has change from something perceived as socially clever.
The trouble is chnage takes so long and we might not have all the time in the world.
Robert
Today waiting for the ferry to Vancouver I was overhearing a conversation between an older guy (an engineer I presume) and 2 teenage guys about the environment / global warming. I was / am astounded by the amount of misinformation that people believe and accept to be true because it supports their beliefs, and accept this information without doing any checking of its validity. So many people actually believe that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humanity, even this engineer who I presume was working on energy projects from the sound of things. We are such an odd species that way; we make our own reality based on our own accepted truths, and then selectively filter out of the information which we are exposed to that which we want to believe, to correspondingly reaffirm our previous beliefs. Changing one’s own beliefs is uncomfortable and requires a lot of internal brain rewiring; it does not happen easily, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. I think this is one of the pitfalls of human psychology and why we are not capable as a species of managing ourselves or the planet. We are too easily manipulated by media interests and the powers that are controlling it.
Of course the climate of this planet has constantly changed. However the rate of change has rapidly accelerated. As far as science can tell us it is unprecedented except possibly twice in the history of the planet. I do not think anyone claims that humans are the sole source of climate change as a result of their emissions. Our emissions do add fuel to the fire, so as to speak, and while we cannot control orbit variations we can and should control our emissions.
Robert
You make a valuable point. There are many errors in science; it is only natural that the more complex a topic is the more errors there are likely to be. When it comes to climate change there can be no absolute certainty but why should we ask for that? There is no absolute certainty in many areas of life – like law, religion, food production, education; it’s all about our best guesses and so it is with climate change. Are not the benefits of lowering emissions – better air quality, longer lasting fossil fuel, cleaner environments – worthwhile in themselves?
There might be some money spent on scientific research and climate change, but it is paltry compared with other money spent and probably paltry compared with the meony we spend on climate change measures!
Robert
BJ
Go for thermal panels – much longer lasting and you can store the heat that they create. (End of the advertisement)
I think nulcear is a hard decision because of the longevity of nuclear waste. It might be worth trying thorium.
The point is that all democratic societies ought to be energy secure. If they are not energy secure they are at risk from societies that control the source of fuel. Is it worth having the right to drive a gas guzzler if it means that you risk your democratic society?
BJ
I am certainly a capitalist too, no doubt about that, and think that freedom and prosperity are linked. If you lose one, you will lose the other. Differences of opinion are important and helpful too. But being a capitalist and loving freedom does not in any way stop you caring about the future or trying to conserve a good future for the coming generations. That is our duty. I happen to think that environmentalism has missed a trick – its greatest proponents should be conservative capitalists – the very people that many environmentlists go out of their way to offend!
Robert