Posted by: graemebird | January 2, 2010

Underwater Volcanoes


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.



  1. [audio src="" /]

    Excellent interview with Ian Plimer. Much better to listen to a fantastic scientist like Plimer, than a crap journalist like George Monbiot. Monbiot is a science illiterate. As well as being a totally pathetic journalist.

  2. “The future is nuclear, without much doubt, CL. By 2013 there will be nuclear battery packs that you just place in a hole in the ground have a wire running out and will light up 20,000 homes by some estimates meeting the needs to regional towns. Life time: 10 years.”

    Thats not quite right Cambria. These units still need to use steam to turn a turbine to light up those homes. The unit puts out heat and self-regulates at about 300 degrees Celsius. Energy tends to use old-fashioned ideas and moves only slowly. So that unit gives us heat. And the heat turns the steam turbine.

  3. I want to keep the drumbeat up with that fraudulent anti-science crap Journalist Monbiot. So I sent him the following message.

    Subject: You were caught lying.

    What have you got to say for yourself you complete cunt?

    “As we have seen it was Monbiot who is the proven fraud. Whereas Plimer answered all the questions, in his book and even live when he could fight his way past interuptions. Monbiot fraudulently used a wrong estimate by Gerlach. Not only wrong but ludicrous. And so Monbiot, and everyone who has supported him since are frauds. Whereas Plimer is a terrific scientist.

    Face facts cultists. “

  4. Logged moderated post

    A molecule absorbs infra-red. Thats robbing the surrounding molecules of radiation they could have gotten. A cooling effect. The CO2 molecules will heat up. And on average they will then move upwards. Above your house, head and thermometer. Thats a cooling effect as well. And we know that CO2 molecules do this. Because CO2 is heavier than air and yet well-mixed fashion up to 100 kilometres.

    Cooling cooling cooling. There are compensatory warming effects to be identified here. But you haven’t found them. And the idea that you’ve quantified the net effect is total delusion on your part.

  5. an 2010 7:55:13pm

    I just saw some incredible foolishness about carbon 14 proving that some terrific amount of current CO2 levels is caused from human action. And that this proves that volcanoes are not a big factor in this story. This is rubbish. C14 is absorbed during photosynthesis and then starts breaking down, allowing us to practice carbon dating. Hydrocarbons are “old” and don’t have much C14. But where do people think the Volcanoes get their CO2 from? From the new stuff? From the carbon recently absorbed into plants? This is rubbish. The global warming fraud will grasp at any lies no matter how flimsy.

  6. hey Graeme

    check out this essay. I think you’ll like it. just confirms what I’ve always thought. The Stoics are the original tough guy philosophers

  7. Thanks. I’ll have a look at it tomorrow.

  8. This is what China is doing to us now. The neoclassicals have to be the most naive people in the world. You want to shake them and talk to them like Frank did to Tony Montana about the Columbian bigshot.

    What do you think Sosa is going to do if you can’t pay? He’s going to send up a fucking hit team is what he is going to do?

    Debt is so much more of an obnoxious slavery-lite put-upon then what Kirchner and the others would have it. Let Perkins tell the story. He was in the business of putting countries in debt, and enriching only the bigshots.

    Rudd has secret meetings with China to get us in heaps more debt. Then when we turn the creditors down with Rio Tinto one of our guys get kidnapped and an entire family gets bludgeoned to death. Next minute China has bought up heaps more of our gas resources. But our hostage is not returned. Or debts are not forgiven. Our family is not brought back to life. The net effect of the debt is bad all the way around.

  9. There is nothing wrong with big corporations in theory. In theory they ought to be the result of success and they ought to reflect it. If we go back to Andrew Carneigies early days and to Standard Oil. Well despite a lot of bad press they were pretty righteous outfits.

    So in theory there is no problem. But it is pretty inevitable that government will corrupt these corporations and the corporations then will turn around and corrupt government, and this cycle will continue.

    For this reason we must emphasize the small business and especially the sole trader. And we can limit corporations to equity only financing, which for technical reasons will vastly improve resource allocation and the effectiveness of our capital markets.

  10. Hi,

    You should take into account that the oceans are immense CO2 sinks, and always have been. Presumably they’ve achieved an ecological balance with the output of CO2 from undersea volcanoes.

    Nowadays, with pollution killing off microscopic CO2 consuming life in the oceans at an accelerating pace, they are becoming less able to absorb CO2 (from the atmosphere as well as undersea volcanoes).

    Of course, the global warming trend decreases the solubility of CO2 in the oceans (try opening a warm bottle of carbonated beverage as opposed to a cold one: the warmer they are, the less CO2 can dissolve in water) which in turn increases atmospheric CO2, which in turn increases temperature, which increases CO2 release from the oceans…. so on and so forth.

    So, a combination of factors is contributing to GW occurring. Curtailing specific over consumptive CO2 producing activities can help, but we need to look at far more than simply our CO2 output: pollution in the oceans has a major effect on their ability to absorb CO2 as it kills the microscopic life that consume CO2.

    Blehh.. It’s a lot of work to live in a clean world. Some people would rather stew in their own metaphorical feces than clean it up, some people would rather force other people to live in their metaphorical feces, and some people are responsible. I don’t expect people who prefer to have other people to do the hard work to understand responsibility.

  11. “You should take into account that the oceans are immense CO2 sinks, and always have been. Presumably they’ve achieved an ecological balance with the output of CO2 from undersea volcanoes”

    The carbon cycle would reach an equilibrium of sorts in its entirety. But would not discriminate between human CO2 and volcanic CO2. So we expect CO2 levels in the air to soar and plummet. But not always exactly in line with underwater volcanic output. Since there will be delays in some cases due to ocean strata, and in other cases there will be overshoot.

    What you are claiming may be the case for some time periods. Where the upper strata and the air are fundamentally in balance throughout most of the ocean. So that there is an equilibrium exchange going on. But this is unlikely to be a forever thing and the CO2 record of the last 180 years does not bear that out.

    In the big lakes you get overturning in the Autumn. You have stratification in the summer. So stratification comes when the water is warmer than usual. The overturning comes when this situation changes, and the lake loses for a short period most of its stratification. We have a situation now where the energy in the ocean is higher than usual and about to turn down. Anything can happen. And we ought be very worried that the CO2 level will crash. The evidence seems to suggest that it will soar and then crash. When it crashes we sure want the hydrocarbon industry in good shape.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: