Iceland’s Katla volcano [image credit: icelandmonitor]
Precision measurements show that sub-glacial volcanoes have been greatly underestimated as an ongoing source of carbon dioxide emissions. When will they re-do the calculations?
H/T Warwick Hughes
Recent research suggests the volume of volcanic CO2 being emitted into the atmosphere is far greater than previously thought, challenging man-made warming, says ClimateChangeDispatch.
The cornerstone principle of the global warming theory, anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is built on the premise that significant increases of modern era human-induced CO2 emissions have acted to unnaturally warm Earth’s atmosphere.
A warmed atmosphere that directly, or in some cases indirectly fuels anomalous environmental disasters such as ocean warming, alteration of ocean chemistry, polar ice sheet melting, global sea level rise, coral bleaching and most importantly dramatic changes in climate.
There are numerous major problems with the AGW principle.
Identification of Volcanic vs. Man-made CO2
Natural volcanic and man-made CO2 emissions have the exact same and very distinctive carbon isotopic fingerprint.
It is therefore scientifically impossible to distinguish the difference between volcanic CO2 and human-induced CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels.
This major problem with the AGW principle has been rationalized away by consensus climate scientists who insist, based supposedly reliable research, that volcanic emissions are minuscule in comparison to human-induced CO2 emissions (Gerlach 1991).
Terrance Gerlach’s volcanic CO2 calculation was based on just 7 actively erupting land volcanoes and three actively erupting ocean floor hydrothermal vents (seafloor hot geysers).
Utilizing gas emission data from this very limited number of volcanic features, Gerlach estimated that the volume of natural volcanic CO2 emissions is 100 to 150 times less than the volume of man-made CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and therefore of no consequence.
To put this calculation process into perspective, the Earth is home to 1,500 land volcanoes and 900,000 seafloor volcanoes/hydrothermal vents.
By sampling just an extremely small percent of these volcanic features it is impossible to imagine that the calculation is correct.
Especially knowing that volcanic activity varies greatly from area to area, volcano to volcano, and through time. Utilizing just 0.001 percent (10/901,500) of Earth’s volcanic features to calculate volcanic CO2 emissions does not inspire confidence in the resulting value.
Non-Erupting Volcanoes Can Emit Massive Amounts of CO2 into Earth’s Atmosphere
Recent geological research by the University of Leeds and others proves that non-erupting volcanoes can emit massive amounts of CO2 into Earth’s atmosphere and oceans. The Gerlach calculation and all follow-up calculations utilized volcanic CO2 rates from actively erupting volcanoes.
Lost in the numerous recent media articles concerning the argument of when, or if Iceland’s Katla Volcano will erupt is the discovery that this non-erupting subglacial volcano is currently emitting staggering amounts of CO2 into Earth’s atmosphere!
Continued here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
We discovered that Katla volcano in Iceland is a globally important source of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in spite of being previously assumed to be a minor gas emitter. Volcanoes are a key natural source of atmospheric CO2 but estimates of the total global amount of CO2 that volcanoes emit are based on only a small number of active volcanoes. Very few volcanoes which are covered by glacial ice have been measured for gas emissions, probably because they tend to be difficult to access and often do not have obvious degassing vents. Through high‐precision airborne measurements and atmospheric dispersion modeling, we show that Katla, a highly hazardous subglacial volcano which last erupted 100 years ago, is one of the largest volcanic sources of CO2 on Earth, releasing up to 5% of total global volcanic emissions
Then there are the effects of all the known and unknown undersea volcanoes to factor in.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Could the OCO-2 satellite be of some help?
In early 2019, the OCO-3 instrument is scheduled to launch to the space station to complement OCO-2 observations and allow scientists to probe the daily cycle of carbon dioxide exchange processes over much of the Earth.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-invested-in-cracking-earth-s-carbon-puzzle
Curious, yes.
Yearly average OCO shows lots of CO2 anomaly @ Iceland.
Apropos the discussion: Typical subaerial volcanoes have a Carbon isotope ratio of -2 to -6 PDB, and thus do not match the ~-22 signal of human combustion. What makes widespread diffusion of CO2 different is that it can be biologically reworked, shifting the ratio to the -20 range typical of soil respiration.
Worldwide soil respiration alone is six times human combustion, and it is very sensitive to increased temperature. A 15% increase in soil respiration would equal human combustion.
Does it matter?? CO2 is not an evident culprit, from whatever the source. Follow it for the last 8k yrs. The earth was more ‘placid’ during the last 4k yrs than the previous 4k. See https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2017/12/15/comparing-proxies/ near middle.
oldmanK – it only matters in terms of exposing the lack of credibility of the man-made emissions scare.
‘When will they re-do the calculations?’
When global cooling ensues, and they’ll need to prove it is Man’s fault.
Global warming news 😉
oh my, it’s Briffa, et al’s tree rings all over again.
Back in ~2009, Ian Plimer wrote a book called “Heaven and Earth” in which he mentioned that volcanoes are major sources of CO2. Given that Plimer is a geologist he is better qualified than most to have an opinion on this subject.
You can probably remember what followed. Instead of attempting to refute Plimer’s work with facts and logic the “Climate Mafia” attacked Plimer personally. When “Ex Cathedra” does not work their next weapon is always “Ad Hominem”.
They wouldn’t need so many weapons if they were on the right track
I’ll plow this plowed ground and beat this dead horse yet some more. Maybe somebody will step up and ‘splain scientifically how/why I’ve got it wrong – or not.
Radiative Green House Effect theory (TFK_bams09):
1) 288 K – 255 K = 33 C warmer with atmosphere, RGHE’s only reason to even exist – rubbish. (simple observation & Nikolov & Kramm)
But how, exactly is that supposed to work?
2) There is a 333 W/m^2 up/down/”back” energy loop consisting of the 0.04% GHG’s that absorbs/”traps”/re-emits per QED simultaneously warming BOTH the atmosphere and the surface. – Good trick, too bad it’s not real, thermodynamic nonsense.
And where does this magical GHG energy loop first get that energy?
3) From the 16 C/289 K/396 W/m^2 S-B 1.0 ε ideal theoretical BB radiation upwelling from the surface. – which due to the non-radiative heat transfer participation of the atmospheric molecules is simply not possible.
No BB upwelling & no GHG energy loop & no 33 C warmer means no RGHE theory & no CO2 warming & no man caused climate change.
Got science? Bring it!!
Nick Schroeder, BSME CU ‘78, CO PE 22774
Experiments in the classical style:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
“has been rationalized away by consensus climate scientists”
————————-
“Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.” – Michael Crichton
————————-
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” – Michael Crichton