UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
no, you offered no citation that 2.19 megatonnes per year is the number.
The farce behind liberal, "I'll tax you again" global warming bullshit - volcanoes!
- Thread starter Uncle Ben
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
actually, NATURAL co2 absorption is pretty relevant when talking about NATURAL co2 emissions.
attempting to justify your fraud does not excuse your fraud.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
nope.
you failed miserably
you must USE WORDS, not youtube links, or facebook likes, or myspace statuses.
you got some screenshots of Angry Birds to throw out there too?
hyroot
Well-Known Member
you didn't read that one either. Mapping project hmm. That's why they we're taking glacier, ice, water samples. It was a global warming project
hyroot
Well-Known Member
I passed with flying colors. You went the wrong way and got fired.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
high range of volcanic CO2 emissions is about 319 million tonnes per year, not 2.19 billion.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092181810200070X
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001RG000105/abstract
kynes is a fucking fraud.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092181810200070X
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001RG000105/abstract
kynes is a fucking fraud.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
damn youre dumb.
i posted the details of Mt Aetna's co2 emissions, AND kilauea's (two heavily studied volcanoes off the top of my head) and said IF aetna's quiescent emissions are average....
since aetna throws out 2000 metric tonnes a day, and kilauea blows off 8500 tonnes a day, aetna is a nice low number for ballparking.
(a volcano in cameroon shits out more co2 than kilauea, in point of fact.)
and since theres more than 3000 known surface volcanoes on the planet, that makes the math easy.
it's an illustration of the uncertainty not a declaration of fact.
do try to keep up.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you extrapolated from a single data source and came to a conclusion that is incredibly distant from even the most generous volcanic CO2 estimates.
that's called a "back of the eggo box" calculation, which you are famous for.
try using science instead. cite some of it you fucking fraud. i did.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
neither of those links says what you claim.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092181810200070X
Our survey shows that it is still very hard to arrive at a meaningful estimate of the lithospheric non-volcanic degassing into the atmosphere. Orders of 102–103 Mt CO2/year can be provisionally considered. Assuming as lower limit for a global subaerial volcanic degassing 300 Mt/year, the lithosphere may emit directly into the atmosphere at least 600 Mt CO2/year (about 10% of the C source due to deforestation and land-use exchange), an estimate we still consider conservative. It is likely that temporal variations of lithosphere degassing, at Quaternary and secular scale, may influence the atmospheric C budget. The present-day lithosphere degassing would seem higher than the value considered to balance at Ma time-scale the CO2 uptake due to silicate weathering.
ill read the full article when i can find a copy without subscription fees.
meanwhile in your other citation...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001RG000105/abstract
ill read the whole thing when time permits, but heres the gist:
"the total CO2 discharge from subaerial volcanism is estimated at 2.0-2.5x10^12mol/y"
taking their LOW number of 2x10^12 mols per year thats 2000000000000 mols per year (yeah, when i learn something i apply it...might wanna take a hint)
2000000000000 mols of co2 weighs 88019000000000 grams (http://www.convertunits.com/from/moles CO2/to/grams)
and thats ~88 megatonnes.
note: thats JUST "subaerial volcanism" (which means Under the Air, not under water) and they assert that they consider it to be "conservative" (which means "it's probably higher")
wow, thats some huge differences in the same subject.
looks like some UNCERTAINTY
300 megatonnes vs 88 megatonnes?
yep. and both say "this is a conservative estimate" not "this is the actual number"
i just used ballpark numbers to demonstrate a point.
the astute observer notes BOTH these papers cite (Gerlach 1991) which examined 7 surface volcanoes (out of 3000) and THREE sub ocean volcanoes (out of an unknown number) to draw it's conclusions. the gerlach study is shaky at best.
edit: i typoed, source 1's "sub aerial volcanism number" was 300mt/y, not 600
600mt/yr is their ESTIMATE based on (Gerlach 1991) which assumes that the SEVEN volcanoes he examined on the surface, and the THREE under the ocean he looked at means that the subocean volcanoes and the surface volcanoes are equal in co2 emissions.
thats pretty silly when you think about it.
Last edited:
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
i didnt claim my ballpark number was accurate, i pulled it out of my ass, and made it clear i had done so.
i threw it out there as a simple example of the uncertainty from Small Sample Size statistics
if we claim that yellowstone's mud volcano is the basline "Normal" volcano we get different numbers.
if we claim that mona loa is the "normal" volcano we get totally different numbers.
the IPCC made a shitload of assumptions like that.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
just like everything you've said in this and other AGW threads.
500 is the most generous estimate of volcanic CO2, which is about 2% of the manmade CO2.
black science guy knows better than walmart stock boy.
DonAlejandroVega
Well-Known Member
*fires mortar rounds into thread*
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
ha ha ha ha ha ha..
your own citation said 600 megatonnes, based on faulty assumptions from (Gerlach 1991)
detailed here:
http://gerlach1991.geologist-1011.mobi/
and his conclusion that surface volcanoes produce 300 megatonnes/yr and undersea volcanoes must be equal to surface volcanoes, cuz he examined SEVEN surface volcanoes (out of 3000) and THREE undersea volcanoes out of an unknown number.
thats a tiny sample, and is certainly unrepresentative, considering the wide variations in volcano emissions.
and your OTHER source said 88 megatonnes/ year for surface volcanoes, based on an even smaller sample (x2 a la Gerlach 1991's assumption) = 176 megatonnes/year
see that variation?
it's called UNCERTAINTY
there is no "Settled Science" or "Scientific Consensus" in surface volcano emissions, much less undersea volcanoes, and even less for tectonic plate expansion zones, irregular eruptions, non-volcanic geologic sources, rock formation weathering, etc etc etc.
but the IPCC ran with their assumptions drawn from "peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed sources"
is it just me, or does bucky seem nervous about his assertions?
it's almost as if he is slowly realizing shit isnt adding up the way he has been told they do.
is it possible bucky may change his position?
could he become doubtful of the official position on AGW?
maybe as doubtful as these guys:
A remark from Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse.”
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the U.N. Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)
Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”
In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
Speaking at the 2000 U.N. Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”
~http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/
one can only wonder.
Last edited:
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
YOUR citation had the numbers stated above.
YOURS
or did you not read them?
i did break it down for ya.
remember:
88 Megatonnes of co2 from all surface volcanoes
vs
300 Megatonnes of co2 from all surface volcanoes
you remember, the Uncertainty from Small Sample Statistics...
especially in an area with such vast differences from volcano to volcano?
and the ASSUMPTION from (Gerlach 1991) which has been repeated over and over , in study after study, that surface volcanoes, curiously, are exactly equal to underwater volcanoes in co2 output, based on a sample size of 7 volcanoes on the surface out of more than 3000, and 3 under water out of an UNKNOWN number?
you dont find those assumptions curiously arbitrary?
i linked to (Gerlach 1991) too, so you could see what it said for yourself.
you did read the materials didnt you?
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
They have a lot in common - both are black and dirty.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
I disagree. I think our country votes on feelings as a whole, so you'll see us check off the female and brown boxes eventually and hopefully move past that and vote for the most qualified.
If they can ever talk Condi Rice into running, and people actually listened to what she says, she'd run away with an election. The left would vote for her because she's a she and black, and that feels good, the right would vote for her because she makes so much sense and is one of them, independents would flock to her because she's not your typical partisan hack. If she could get through the primaries that is, the right tends to nominate the next man up, that will have to stop too.