Lets get this straight Marco. You are saying that what the study really said, is that the Yellowstone CO2 estimate wasn’t 300% of the Gerlach total, but rather about 15%.
So we have Monbiot claiming that volcanoes are less than 1% of human output, and even the next ridiculously low figure offered puts yellowstone area output as 15% of Gerlach’s total.
This what you are saying?
Not that it matters. All these low-ball totals are just silly.
If we go to wiki to find out about rift zones, we find that the entry no longer contains any information on the incredible vastness of undersea volcanic activity. But there is some useful stuff anyhow.
“A rift zone is a feature of some volcanoes, especially the shield volcanoes of Hawaii, in which a linear series of fissures in the volcanic edifice allows lava to be erupted from the volcano’s flank instead of from its summit.”
“The reason lava often erupts from the flanks of Hawaiian volcanoes is gravity: it is easier for liquid lava, which is heavy, to flow laterally out the sides of a mountain than to be pushed up an additional several hundred or several thousand meters in elevation to be erupted from the summit.”
Do you get the reasoning here? Volcanic activity on land is the exception and not the rule. It takes a lot of energy to get the magma making it to any land surface at all. Let alone to have it shooting out of the summit of a live volcanic mountain.
Hence the deeper we go into the ocean. That is to say the deeper is the rift zone in the ocean, as a general rule the greater is the level of volcanic material we expect to see coming out of it. The global warming crowd refuse to accept the historical record for CO2. And they won’t sort such a record out for themselves. But their case can never be made without it.
Likewise the global warming frauds do not want to find out how much CO2 the rift zones of the deep oceans are putting out. They don’t want to know. All their estimates are of the pretense that these areas are barely active. Normal people talk in such terms as “the ring of fire.” A global warmer must assume this is barely active slothful ring of almost nothing. No fire and not much activity at all.
First principles tell us that we ought to estimate proportionally higher for the oceanic stuff. Global warmers estimate ridiculously lower.
The oceans comprise twice as much area as the land just for starters. Proportionally the oceans volcanoes are vastly more dense per area as on land. And further proportionally they seem to be, and will be from first principles, powerfully more active then on land.
The result is that when we are estimating we ought to be throwing multiplies on multiples. But the warming fraud isn’t interested in an honest estimate. Or yet even in any sort of survey.
Just to guess out of the air a normal human being, who didn’t have any figures on it would estimate multiples something like 2 (the extra surface area) times 100 (the vastly greater volcanic density of the oceans) times 100 (the far greater frequency of activity in the deep oceans.) And if he assumed such figures he might guess the oceanic volcanic output may be 20 000 times that of the landed stuff.
The point is the real figures could be lead us to estimating CO2 output from volcanoes, as being somewhat bigger than the human contribution. Or an honest survey may lead us to think that the volcanic contribution will dwarf the human contribution. But Monbiot is a complete fraud. Since he chose an obviously silly study, and had to go back to 1991 to do so.