Volcanoes are most likely cause of Global warming

by kokomero Thu Jul 29, 2004 15:01

The historical record shows that volcanic activity has been associated with global cooling CO2 on the other hand is associated with global warming.

by Cian Thu Jul 29, 2004 15:08 evilbulliton at hush dot com

Global Warming is a red herring.
Consider the the ice caps melting scenario.
The majority of the ice is floating in the sea,
if the ice melts the sea level goes up they say.
Most basic thing you've ever done in science.
Water expands when frozen.
When it melts the sea levels will go down.
Have of this shit is so misleading.
Its a real struggle to get to what really is going on.
Now, we are fucking the enviroment up big time: topsoil being eroded, the destruction of the rainforests, industrial farming and the annihilation of sea coral.

This volcano debate seems to shift responsibility from us. yeah lets blame those volcanoes, they've never been our friend.
maybe america could liberate them.

by Joe Thu Jul 29, 2004 15:22

Cian if you remember that Archimedes bloke sitting is his greek bath tub many thousands of years ago. He realised that a floating body displaces its own weight in water.

So floating ice makes no difference at all to sea levels.

BUT. BUT. BUT. BUT

Most ice is not floating in the sea. The Antartic is not an ice sheet but a solid rock continent covered in ice. Ice that can be thousands of feet thick and millions of years old. And most of it above sea level.

The problem is if/when that ice melts it runs off of the land and into the sea. This does result in sea levels rising. And the Antartic ice sheet appears to be both melting and breaking up.

And RP is simply wrong. Volcanic release of CO2 in comparison with man made release was looked at in 1991 "Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 1012 mol/yr from volcanoes. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times."

by Cian Thu Jul 29, 2004 15:34

I dont understand the Archimides analogy Joe.
The Artic is just floating ice. Surely when this melts the sea level would go down.
Now it would take a huge temperature change to instigate this melting. The antatrtica is in no danger of that. its -37 there.
If the ice cracked off and fell into the sea then the water would rise.

by Cian Thu Jul 29, 2004 15:36

"If the ice cracked off and fell into the sea then the water would rise."
Eh, I see the analogy now Joe.

by Mike Thu Jul 29, 2004 16:12

The Earth has TWO ice caps, one North circumpolar and one Sout circumpolar.

The Northern ice cap is currently MOSTLY floating on a shallow sea and so its melting would have little effect on sea level. It's only that portion of the North ice cap currently supported on the islands which counts. But yes, the melting of the glaciers of Greenland would raise sea level SLIGHTLY.

The Southern ice cap is MOSTLY supported by a continent barely above sea level now. Even melting of the Ross Sea shelf would cause some sea level rise since a good deal of that is "grounded" on the bottom and not really floating. But the melting of the Antarctic glaciers would cause serious rises in sea level since they are thousands of feet thick.

ALSO -- would cause an increase in volcanism. As the Antarctic glaciers melted, the removal of their weight would cause "rebound" as the underlying rock rose (continental plates are essentially "floating"). Ice is less dense than average rock, but only by a factor of several times. Thus if you melt off 5000 feet of ice, expect the rock now supporting that ice to try to rise say 1000 feet.

by iosaf Thu Jul 29, 2004 16:43

How do you know volcanic has not been taken into account already?
Why do you think it' more likely to be a cause of global warming?
Have you read somewhere that there is notably more volcanic activity now?
Because there isn't it.
We've known since at least Krakatoa that volcanic activity has an observable effect on the upper areas of the atmosphere. And fine nineteenth century minds wrote it all down and put it all together before the invention of the car. so Volcanic activity is a "constant" in understanding of climatic change and global temperature change. But cars and planes and fossil fuel energy plants did not exist at the time of Krakatoa and since their arrival on the planet we have observed incremental change in mean temperatures.
Now if there aren't more volcanoes going off these days, but there are one billion fossil fuel engines running on the planet, which variable seems more likely to be attract the serious thinker?

I swear you just cut and paste this stuff of a Free World Capitalism invented God website.
Please desist from that.

by skeptical dreamer Thu Jul 29, 2004 16:58

Very lucky for the forces of “economic progress” if this turns out to be the case, wouldn’t it?
Pure scientific debate should be free of political and ideological intrusion. But this seems rarely to be the case with so much new “research” being funded by multi-nationals and their interests. This smacks of such a case.

by ronald reagan Thu Jul 29, 2004 18:17

Blame the trees!
More cars and less trees!

by E$$O boy Thu Jul 29, 2004 19:05

ah... yeah they do produce a lot of CO2, but they DON'T Produce as much as humans.
Not unless the volcanoes are going to erupt every year.

Go, on, tell us the answer is nuclear power next.... even though there's less than 60 years supply of usable uranium...

Great story dufus... no sources, no verifiable facts... just an unsupported opinion.

by average person Thu Jul 29, 2004 19:09

is responsible for an extra tonne of CO2 per year.

in 1850 there were about 2 BILLION people.
Now there are 6 BILLION.

the CO2 content of the air has risen substantially since then.

You wanna tell me that volcanoes only started acting up recently?

by Oillie Burns Thu Jul 29, 2004 19:17

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env181.htm

by E$$O Boy Thu Jul 29, 2004 20:50

That just shows that volcanoes contribute to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. (which nobody disputes)

It doesn't say that Volcanoes are the main cause... Volcanoes have ALWAYS thrown out CO2... what's causing climate change is an INCREASE in the levels of CO2 beyond what the Earth's biosphere is used to absorbing and re-cycling.

Human industry and home energy use contribute far more CO2 in a year than volcanoes do, and unlike volcanoes, our pollution sources don't have long dormant cycles..

Humans have increased in numbers and in their technological levels, even in the third world... that means more CO2, and Methane (which has a worse effect than CO2 in the {relatively} short period it takes to break down into water and...CO2)

The increases in CO2 levels coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, with colonial expansion, the wholesale destruction of rainforests, the coming of the motor car, airplanes, and 40 inch TVs.... not with Krakatoa and Vesuvius... which have been around a lot longer...

by David C. Thu Jul 29, 2004 21:04

98.98% of climate scientists believe that global warming is caused by human activity.

For all you redneck right-wingers out there, the word 'believe' in the above sentence is not the same as 'believe' as applied to whatever infantile bullshit you happen to use to organize your mental world. No. It means that these scientists rationally consider it to be the best possible explaination based on facts, evidence and logic.

The other 0.02% are deliberately funded by American oil/gas/coal interests in order to be able to claim that there is still some dispute (a technique pioneered by the tobacco companies). A 'fair and balanced' representation of the human cause of global warming is a 98.98% to 0.02% balance, not a 50% to 50% balance.

There are many ways to lie.

by a guy called satan Thu Jul 29, 2004 22:22

Seems like the poor old volcanoes are getting the blame for everything recently doesn't it? The hole in the ozone layer,the dark ages and now global warming .I think it might be because they're so big and make such a huge bang that they get bad -boy status. That combined with the fact that there's nothing much anyone can do to stop volcanoes makes them convenient scapegoats for the oil industry and its apologists . There's also a hellish ,apocalyptic aspect to them - spewing out all that sulphur and molten whateveritis . Maybe volcanoes should be put on George Bush's list.

by Terry Thu Jul 29, 2004 23:42

You say:
>Yet this ignores the FACT that a single volcanic eruption produces more of these gases than the entire wood, coal and oil burned by human in all of human history.

This is simply not true. Please provide us with your sources for this statement.

by Fact-checker Fri Jul 30, 2004 15:15

Thanks for your two cents, Righteous pragmatist but i think I'll take the advice of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community instead. Like, for example the United Nations Intercontinental Panel on Climate Change which -i think you'll find- has quite a different opinion on the matter.

Still, nice try...

by proveit Fri Jul 30, 2004 16:01

Amazing though, that a seemingly intelligent person can assume that by putting the word 'fact' in capitals that they have proven their case.

by Aidan Clear - Home Sun Aug 01, 2004 08:38 aidclear at indigo dot ie 2896783

The ice caps around the North and South poles are at elevated altitude. Antarctic at 3,000 metres, Greenland 1,000 Metres. Air temperature would have to increase by 5deg Centigrade per 1000 metres to melt these glaciers. This temperture rise is not in the offing for centuries even by the most alarmist of global warming scare mongers.

by Aidan Clear - Home Sun Aug 01, 2004 08:41 aidclear at indigo dot ie Blackrock, Co Dublin, Ireland 2896783

Oil Company's do not produce CO2.
People who use oil and coal produce CO2.

by Aidan Clear - Home Sun Aug 01, 2004 09:03 aidclear at indigo dot ie 2896783

The atmosphere adds 25 deg C to the planets temperature. That is without an atmospher the planet would be on average 25 deg colder based on the present distance from the Sun, its phase of life and heat emanating from the earth due to radioactive decay.
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 3.6 parts in 10,000. This, in 1960, was 3.3 parts in 10,000. This is a change of 3 parts in 100,000. The global warming alarmists claim that this has caused a change of approximately 1 deg C in the atmospheric temperature during this change. This works out at 1 in 25 deg or 4,000 parts per 100,000.
I am not aware of any natural physical property of any process that can produce an effect 1000 times greater than its presence.
The Conclusion
If there is temperature change, which there is minute to minute on this scale, it is not due to CO2 levels, human or other.

by jeff Sun Aug 01, 2004 18:01

ice is solid, it takes up room, but when it melts, it will be more water added to water already there. It will be a lot of water

Also, mount Kiliminjaro's snow on it's peak has melted at an unprecendented length in the last thirty years. The snow is there since the ice age, but scientists, notably, Dr David King, the UK Government specialist on global warming, have decreed that itit will disappear in the next thirty years. ( King said this on BBC World two days ago)

by Akrasia Sun Aug 01, 2004 19:20

Are you denying that global temperatures are indeed rising? If so you are at direct odds with climate specialists and meteorologists around the world.
Are you denying that Glaciers and Ice sheets are rapidly melting? If so then you should take a trip to the French Alps where you can see it for yourself, talk to the locals, ask hem what the glacier was like 10 years ago.

Are you denying that the Sea temperatures are rising? Then please explain the destruction of 90% of coral activity in the Indian Ocean in 1998 due to record high temperatures and the fact that the coral has not recovered in the last years.

Are you denying that sea levels are rising?
Tell this to south pacific Island inhabitants who are threatened with the loss of their entire world.

Sea levels are rising, and according to the IPPC, the greatest contributing factor to this is the fact that as temperatures rise, water becomes less dense and so takes up more space. The Hadley Centre identifies this as the most damaging and most scientifically provable effect of global warming and estimates that thermal expansion alone could raise global oceans by 10 to 20 inches in the next century. This is easily enough to engulf most of the coastal cities in the world with of course, the most devastation to those nations without the resources to protect themselves.

IPCC also predicted about 6 inches sea level rise from melting glaciers and ice caps. They suggest that warm temperatures might actually cause a drop in sea levels by about 1-2 inches in Antarctica, but would cause melting in Greenland that could raise sea levels by 2.5 inches over the same period.

Basically, because of the immensely complex series of causes and effects, it is impossible to fully predict what will happen. Global warming is happening. Anybody who denies this is just pursuing their own agenda. However, Because Global warming doesn't mean that the whole world is going to get warmer, diverting the Gulf Stream could cause an Ice age in North Europe, the sums get very tricky.

by giggling iosaf Sun Aug 01, 2004 20:15

easy- homeopathic volcanoes are causing climate change.

by Aidan Clear - home Mon Aug 02, 2004 11:56 aidclear at indigo dot ie Blackrock, Co. Dublin 2896783

I had the dubious privalige of maintaining the tidal record at Dublin for 25 years and no discernable rise in average sea level was apparent

by Aidan Clear - Home Mon Aug 02, 2004 12:28 aidclear at indigo dot ie 2896783

Go to the link below and look on the site for the graphical record of sea level at Tuvalu in the Pacific over the last 30 years. Been to the Carribean? I have. Tthere the buildings are constructed 0.3 metres above the high water mark. The tidal range is about 0.3 metres and they would certainly notice the rise in sea level if it was present
I'm going to Patagonia this year to look at the advancing glaciers
Thanks

by Aidan Clear - Home Mon Aug 02, 2004 12:32 aidclear at indigo dot ie Blackrock, Co. Dublin , Ireland 2896783

Dr. King was not present when the Ice cover of Kilaminjaro last melted. So he can't tell if the present rate of melting is unprecedented.
Dr King is a government appointed expert. To get the job and keep his job he must deliver the one message. Global warming is real.

by Aidan Clear - Home Mon Aug 02, 2004 12:36 aidclear at indigo dot ie 2896783

Your as close as any to an explanation.

by hmmm Thu Aug 05, 2004 20:27

"The ice caps around the North and South poles are at elevated altitude. Antarctic at 3,000 metres, Greenland 1,000 Metres. Air temperature would have to increase by 5deg Centigrade per 1000 metres to melt these glaciers. This temperture rise is not in the offing for centuries even by the most alarmist of global warming scare mongers."


Ahm... if you melt the bottom, then the top will become lower too... it's not necessary to melt ice from the top down... did ya not know that???

by Aidan Clear - Home Sat Aug 07, 2004 15:32 aidclear at indigo dot ie 2896783

I have often mused as to whether the glacier was melted at the bottom. Your question finally prompted me to quantify what the temperature is at the bottom of a glacier.

It is assumed that the ground and rock underneath the glacier is granite. If there is information otherwise you can adjust the calculation accordingly. It is not difficult.
Lithosphere Thickness.
The lithosphere can by anything from a few kilometers thick to 250 Kilo Metres(Km)(150 Miles) thick.
As a general rule the higher the rock (mountain) above ground the thicker the underlying rock is. This is similar to an iceberg in water, the more you see above water the more there is below.
So for this exercise I will use a lithosphere thickness of 100Km(60 Miles) as all the significant glaciers are at elevated altitude.
Glacier Thickness
I will use a glacier thickness of 10,000 feet as this is the thickness of the Antarctic glaciers as determined using various measurement methods, satelite, aircraft etc.
Dont forget the weight of ice has to supported too so the ground was higher than present before the weight of ice was added.
Temperature
The base of the lithosphere is at the melting point of lava,a temperature of 2000 deg F
The top of the ice sheet in Anartica is say -30 deg F, as measured by Antarctic expeditions.

The conductivity of granite is 1.6 Btu/Hr/Sq ft./Deg F/Ft, that of ice 1.3 Btu/Hr/Sq ft./Deg F/Ft. For the purpose of simplicty we can use the same value for both granite and ice say 1.6 Btu/Hr/Sq ft./Deg F/Ft as there is much more granite than ice.

Since we use the same conductivity the Temperature at any depth is proportional to its depth so simplifying the above to 97 Km of granite and 3Km of ice the temperature 3Km down will be higher than the surface temperature by (depth of interest /total depth)* temperature rise from top to bottom.
ie=(3/100)*(2000 + 30)
dT = 69 deg F
This would raise the temperature from -30 deg F to +39 deg F, 7 deg F above the melting point of ice at atmospheric pressure.
So the ICE should melt end of discussion.

But we know the ice is there so why does it not melt.

Lets examine the effect of Thermal conductivity on heat flow, because we need heat flow to melt that ice.
The figure of 1.6 Btu/Hr/Sq ft./Deg F/Ft determines the rate at which granite conducts heat. Using the depth figures for evaluation set out earlier above we calculate the heat transfer rate as follows:-
1.6 Btu/Hr = 1.6Btu/Hr (Conductivity)
SqFt. = 1 (Area of interest is 1 Sq Ft)
Deg F = 2000 + 30 (Temperature difference)
Ft = 100 Km ( 58 * 5280 Ft) ~300,000 Ft. (Lenght of conduction path)
This gives a heat flow of (1.6*2030)/300,000 Btu/Hr. or 1.08*10^2 Btu/Hr
It takes 141 Btu to melt a lb of ice(Latent Heat of freezing). A foot of ice is ~62 lbs. So to melt a foot of ice would require [ weight of ice * Latent Heat/ Heat flow]= (62* 141)/(1.08*10^2) Hours. = 809,444 = 92.4 years(8760 Hrs per year)

So this could explain why the glaciers do not melt from underneath. They continue to accumalate huge weight sufficient to drive the ice in a river of solid material at a rate of metres per day. Impressive eh!. It also suggests that the boundary between the ground and the glacier is a liquid. It should be noted that the melting point of ice decreases with pressure by about 20 deg F at 10,000 ft. All of the above figures can be adjusted to suit but the sample bove is built from data on the internet.

by Aidan Clear - Home Sat Aug 07, 2004 16:31 aidclear at indigo dot ie

Lets examine the effect of Thermal conductivity on heat flow, because we need heat flow to melt that ice.
The figure of 1.6 Btu/Hr/Sq ft./Deg F/Ft determines the rate at which granite conducts heat. Using the depth figures for evaluation set out earlier above we calculate the heat transfer rate as follows:-
1.6 Btu/Hr = 1.6Btu/Hr (Conductivity)
SqFt. = 1 (Area of interest is 1 Sq Ft)
Deg F = 2000 + 30 (Temperature difference)
Ft = 100 Km ( 58 * 5280 Ft) ~300,000 Ft. (Lenght of conduction path)
This gives a heat flow of (1.6*2030)/300,000 Btu/Hr. or 1.08/10^2 Btu/Hr
It takes 141 Btu to melt a lb of ice(Latent Heat of freezing). A foot of ice is ~62 lbs. So to melt a foot of ice would require [ weight of ice * Latent Heat/ Heat flow]= (62* 141)/(1.08/10^2) Hours. = 809,444 = 92.4 years(8760 Hrs per year)

by Akrasia Sat Aug 07, 2004 17:18

You forgot to carry the 2

by Ha HA! Sat Aug 07, 2004 21:15

Trying to blind people with science and ignoring the obvious?

You can have whatever calculations you like about the heat conducting properties of GRANITE, but it's the WATER that melts the ICE. (Nice maths, but poor logic dumbass)

When the water warms up, it melts the ice.
As ice at the bottoms melts and flows away, the glacier slowly makes its way down the slope and more ice meets the water....

If the water stays warm enough to melt the ice, then eventually all the ice will slide down and melt.

This is obvious to anyone who has ever seen an ice cube melt in a shallow pool of water.

by KD Tue Aug 10, 2004 05:37 kbd at tpg dot com dot au

I remember studying glaciers in Geography back in school. Its been a while but I was certain that water isn't what causes glaciers to melt.
This link explains it way better than I ever could.

Cheers!
http://www.geographyjim.org/glacier_formation.htm

by Mark Morrow Fri Sep 24, 2004 01:03

The floating ice is not the problem (and when it melts, it'll be the same level - not less since the ice above the water now is in the water). it's the ice on land that is going into the water because the ice shelfs are meltling. Ice shelfs also do not float and do cause water levels to rise as ice gets packed above them.

If the ross ice shelf melts and the glaciers next to it slide into the ocean, expect water levels to go up 16 feet.

by ICE MAN Fri Sep 24, 2004 01:11

I dont think relatives of those who sailed on the Titanic would share your analysis of the innocuity of floating ice

by lava lamp Fri Sep 24, 2004 15:36

it's the solution that effects us. Our global climate is regulated by several factors amongst which are - atmosphere (the amount of heat allowed in from the Sun, the amount of radiation shielded by the atmosphere and the amount of heat allowed out) - The Moon (it regulates our tidal systems) the salinity of the Sea (Sea water is a different density to fresh water because it contains more minerals and salts).
The behaviour of the solution combines with the gravity exerted by the Moon and other effects of Earth's rotation to allow ocean currents carry both wind (low atmosphere air flow) and water to different parts of the planet.

Without the gulf stream, Ireland would be as cold as Newfoundland. If too much fresh water melts and enters the Atlantic ocean current system, the solution is altered in density and the current system (and all the life it supports) alters.

Most life (the fish we eat) in the open ocean is concentrated in the current systems and constantly on the move, the placing of those systems is the result of salinity. Long before we notice dramatic rising sea levels we will notice that our fish reserves have moved and depleted and that the weather systems we associated with current placing in the last era are increasingly "extreme". That's why the annual hurricane season is indicatory of "what's going wrong".

by Steve Fri Oct 08, 2004 03:22

That is an idiotic statement to make. Volcanoes have been erupting since the dawn of creation, and global warming seems only to be a problem in modern geological time. To say that naturally occuring eruptions are causing more harm to the environment than human activity is totaly rediculous. If this were the case then the earth we know now would be a deserted and life would not be able to exist. But, as we can all tell, life does exist, and is surviving quite well if I may say so. Don't get me wrong... I'm not a granola breath environmentalist whoes purpose in life is to destroy the fossil fuel indusrty. All i'm saying is that the is absolutly no reason to blame the "problems" with our environment on volcanoes.

by Doug Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:56 digdouged at yahoo dot com UK

It's true that ice takes up more volume than water but when the ice is floating in water it displaces water of an equal mass. This is why the top of the iceberg protrudes above the surface of the sea.
Therfore when it melts the volume of water it creats will not exceed the volume of water it displaced as a block of ice.
To conclude this means that floating ice does not change sea levels once it is melted.
Only glaciers on land can do this.

by mise Sun Feb 20, 2005 12:18

As you are aware Polar Ice is frozen fresh water and the sea is.......? Salt water . Good.

So despite Archimedes displacemnet theory which is of no relevance here, when the ice melts it releases vast quantities of fresh water into the sea water which in turn affects the global tide patterns.

For instance Ireland is on the same lattitude as NewFoundland but isn't frozen. Why is this?

The Gulf Stream and the Atlantic Converor is why.
When the sea becomes overly de-salinated is when the shit hits the fan. Google Atlantic Conveyor also!!

by hahaha Wed May 24, 2006 14:45

Yes, and as we all know volcanoes have only been erupting since about the time of the industrial revolution!

How can whoever hides behind the "righteous pragmatist" pseudonym be allowed to write articles here...is noone checking this guy?

Also, in response to equally misguided science-abuser Aidan Clear's john-daly.com link above - here's a page that discuss it's errors.
http://people.aapt.net.au/~johunter/greenhou/home.html
(since john-daly.com features an animated gif of the Taz cartoon character hopefully noone else was taking it seriously in a scientific debate in the first place though...)

by Con Mon Mar 23, 2009 23:59

Volcanoes have continualy been erupting for millions of years.
If volcanoes emit such a huge amount of greenhouse gas why is it that there has been such a rapid increase of greenhouse gas emmisions over the past 100 years, and since the industrial revolution, when man started making his environmental impact?

by VulcanologistSpock Tue Mar 24, 2009 07:13

"volcanoes have been erupting from time in memorial so they couldn't possibly be responsible for global warming"

er...this is not scientific at all.

Warming seems to be proportional to CO2 in the air. If a few big volcanoes decided to erupt and emit a lot of CO2 into the air over a short time then surely they would have an effect. If you average this over thousands of years then it looks ok but in practice volcanoes ERUPT!!! They sleep for a long time emitting small steady low level amounts of gas then suddenly squirt out a huge amount of crap in a short space of time. Really long term averages don't tell the whole story here. A bunch of big eruptions in a 50 year period might be a factor worth examining though.

Such a large CO2 spike in a relatively short space of time could indeed have an effect of some sort.

The question is, has there been all that much volcanic activity lately? And approximately how much CO2 has been emitted by such volcanoes and how does this amount compare with the amount spewed out by industry and our SUV lifestyles. Which is greater?

Maybe find out these approximate figures then let the squabbling continue in a more informed and less hand waving fashion.

by The Penguin Tue Mar 24, 2009 13:54

Antarctica has 20 million cubic kilometers of land based ice.

It is not floating on water.

And it is melting:

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Satellites_Detect_Sig....html

Start Praying.

by Venusian. Tue Mar 24, 2009 14:21

Concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last 650,000 years:

http://www.albionmonitor.com/0511a/c02record.html

Pray even more.
.

by Scared. Tue Mar 24, 2009 14:34

This graph is frightening.

It shows the rise in Co2 over the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii.
It is always rising:

http://www.atmoz.org/img/co2_measurements.png

(The "wiggles" are the seasons.)