Acid Oceans Due to Undersea Volcanoes?

Acid Oceans Due to Undersea Volcanoes?

There are 309 comments on the international-environmental-affairs.suite101.com story from Apr 8, 2010, titled Acid Oceans Due to Undersea Volcanoes?. In it, international-environmental-affairs.suite101.com reports that:

A New Study Refutes Theory Humans Are Responsible for Acidification. A study by Australian geology researcher, Timothy Casey contests the recent claims by environmentalists that man-made emissions of carbon dioxide have been causing ocean acidification. These disturbing claims have been perplexing geologists, among other researchers, who have failed to detect any increase in acidification in the word's rivers, lakes, reservoirs and aquariums.

Now geologists have investigated this question further and come up with new answers. They argue, if there is such a difference between our oceans and our rivers and reservoirs then the source couldn’t be common to both. By finding no increases anywhere in inland water systems this study has inevitably concluded that any human emissions into the atmosphere of carbon dioxide must be excluded as a potential source of oceanic acidification.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at international-environmental-affairs.suite101.com.

First Prev
of 16
Next Last

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#310 Jul 11, 2010
So what exactly has to happen now to prove us deniers are correct. You doomers say the theory knows what WILL happen, tell us what WON'T happen.
Timothy Casey

Australia

#311 Jul 11, 2010
From:

http://www.topix.com/forum/science/geology/TR...
Gord wrote:
[…]

IAN PLIMER: My response is that there are 220,000 undersea volcanoes that we know about. There's 64,000 kilometres of undersea volcanoes which we do …

GEORGE MONBIOT: Which they have counted.

IAN PLIMER: It is the height of bad manners to interrupt. Please restrain yourself. And we have 64,000 kilometres of volcanoes in submarine environments with massive super volcanoes there. We do not measure them. And the figures that I have used are deduced from the chemistry of rocks which erupt on the sea floor.

TONY JONES: OK. Now, that's that point dealt with. George Monbiot, a quick response to that and then we'll move on to other questions.

GEORGE MONBIOT: Yeah, sure. I mean, it's, again, straightforward fabrication. Ian produces no new evidence to suggest that the USGS figures are wrong. He keeps citing this statement that they don't include submarine volcanoes. It's been pointed out to him many, many times that the USGS figures do include submarine volcanoes. And actually, it's the height of bad manners Professor Plimer to lie on national television about something that you know to be plain wrong.

---

Volcanic Gases and Their Effects

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1991).

[…]

It's OBVIOUS that the USGS DOES NOT MEASURE the CO2 produced by under-sea Volcanoes exactly like Plimer stated "but more than 85 per cent of the world's volcanoes we do not measure"!!!

USGS have CALCULATED an ESTIMATE based on papers!...Like Gerlach, 1991 and 2002, that Tony Jones mentions in his rant.

Please tell me where the USGS, Gerlach or anybody else has MEASURED CO2 from 220,000 undersea volcanoes that we know about.

And Monbiot's rant "Which they have counted" is about as STUPID as it gets!
Just so you know, Gerlach (1991) actually exposes Monbiot's "Which they have counted" statement for what it really is. Previously unavailable on the internet, I've re-published Gerlach (1991) on my site so people can verify the facts for themselves. Aside from the emissions at three geothermal sites, the USGS study by Gerlach (1991) includes no emission measurements from submarine volcanoes. See for yourself right here:

http://gerlach1991.geologist-1011.mo bi

Gerlach (1991,§3,¶1) asserts "There are no estimates for off-ridge volcanos ". In fact Gerlach (1991,§6,¶5) had sufficient foresight to caution his readers as follows:
The adequacy of seafloor spreading rates as a predictor of mid-plate volcano degassing rates is less clear, and it is possible that CO2 degassing at mid-plate volcanos is outside the conceptual framework of the current carbon cycle models. The high CO2 degassing rates for Mount Etna underscore the need to ensure that mid-plate volcano degassing is satisfactorily represented in models of the carbon geochemical cycle.
As you can see, if you read the paper, the only emission measurements Gerlach's (1991) estimate is based on are seven subaerial volcanoes and three hydrothermal vent sites. Gerlach (1991,§3,¶1) is crystal clear when he states that the data are woefully inadequate to a valid estimate of volcanic carbon dioxide emission:
My principle aim, however, is to emphasize unsettled problems requiring further study and uncertainties due to inadequate data.
This statement, moreover, exposes the fact that in attempting to deny the potentially significant volcanic contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, authors citing Gerlach (1991) do so out of context.

--
Timothy Casey B.Sc.(hons.)
Consulting Geologist
http://geologist-1011.net

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#312 Jul 11, 2010
Timothy Casey wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, papers like this do support the idea that volcanic carbon dioxide is 13C depleted if you consider that much of the carbon dioxide of the xenoliths is outgassed as the xenolith is melted and assimilated into the magma prior to extrusion. Where do you think lava comes from? What do you think the xenoliths are doing to the lava and in particular to the volcanic carbon isotope ratio? Lava is significantly magmatic, and magmatic carbon sources are particularly depleted in 13C, as these papers show.
Without a statistically significant estimate of 13C depletion in volcanic emissions, you have no scientific basis for the claim that fossil fuel contributions to atmospheric carbon dioxide can be distinguished from volcanic contributions to atmospheric carbon dioxide. As a matter of fact, no-one has produced a statistically significant estimate of total volcanic carbon dioxide emission much less a statistically significant volcanic carbon isotope study. This makes the claim that fossil fuel contributions to atmospheric carbon dioxide can be distinguished from volcanic contributions to atmospheric carbon dioxide factually incorrect.
Moreover, isotopic composition is also tied to geochemistry, which is defined by volcanic province. So not only do you need to establish statistical significance for your study, but yout need to establish statistical significance in every volcanic province.
Science is empirical
--
Timothy Casey B.Sc.(hons.)
Consulting Geologist
http://geologist-1011.net
Empty theorising.

How much of this can you support with citations of peer reviewed papers?

Have you actually managed to get your own "paper" published in a peer reviewed journal yet?

Timothy Casey B.Sc.(hons.)
Consulting Geologist
Tired of baking his brains out supervising drilling rigs in the outback; hopes to jump on the fossil fuel industry funded denial gravy train.
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#313 Jul 11, 2010
Pokay1kaduB wrote:
... This agrees with my statement that much of emissions of gaseous CO2 from indersea volcanoes would form hydrates and descend to the bottom. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...
A small side note...

Presumably, this process has been ongoing for many hundreds of million of years. So what happens to all this gaseous CO2 from undersea volcanoes that form hydrates? Perhaps it becomes oil and natural gas?

Such a scenario would push back peak oil.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#314 Jul 11, 2010
dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
A small side note...
Presumably, this process has been ongoing for many hundreds of million of years. So what happens to all this gaseous CO2 from undersea volcanoes that form hydrates? Perhaps it becomes oil and natural gas?
Such a scenario would push back peak oil.
Just make it up as you go along- nobody will notice.
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#315 Jul 11, 2010
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely, and for many different motives. Loyalty, an honest belief that the industry you work for benefits humanity, a "them and us culture" towards environmentalism... and also, less honourably, attention and money (sponsored papers and conference attendance, chat shows and sponsored lecture tours if you make it big enough, book deals...).
Dear Fair Game,
Well said. Why does there seem to be such an overwhelming consensus? A complex mix of motives, as you so eloquently listed.

thanks,
-koolaid
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#316 Jul 11, 2010
Timothy Casey wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, papers like this do support the idea that volcanic carbon dioxide is 13C depleted if you consider that much of the carbon dioxide of the xenoliths is outgassed as the xenolith is melted and assimilated into the magma prior to extrusion. Where do you think lava comes from?
It takes millions of years for the C13 to be depleted and the magma is enriched by subduction of sea floor with fairly 'modern' levels of C13.

One point is that the volcanic emissions are less than one percent of the well measured combustion products of fossil fuels. And the majority of volcanic emissions are purely 'recycled' from sea bed bottom, NOT changing the atmospheric levels.

In fact, we can show that over the last millenia PRIOR to AGW, CO2 levels were VERY constant, showing no change at all. This blows the idea that the volcanoes produced the extra CO2 into smoke.

We not only know that volcanic activity was not increasing and CO2 from volcanoes is not a sufficient source or even altering CO2 levesl but we ALSO know that we ARE emitting gigatons of carbon from fossil fuel combustion.
Timothy Casey wrote:
<quoted text>
Lava is significantly magmatic, and magmatic carbon sources are particularly depleted in 13C, as these papers show.
Not all magma gets it's carbon from subduction. The papers may be on basaltic flows such as Kiloaea which are of older magma since there is no flow from subduction in the sea bed hotspots. To generalise this way from a few studies is false.
Timothy Casey wrote:
<quoted text>
As a matter of fact, no-one has produced a statistically significant estimate of total volcanic carbon dioxide emission much less a statistically significant volcanic carbon isotope study.
And in this you are opposed to the established science which says you are wrong.
Timothy Casey wrote:
<quoted text>
Timothy Casey B.Sc.(hons.)
Consulting Geologist
http://geologist-1011.net
Ahh. Argument by authority back up by quotings from you own blog. Other than symptoms of a serious megalomania and narcissist, what does it contribute?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#317 Jul 11, 2010
They want to strangle climate by removing CO2. We won't let them fool with virgin climate.
Earthling

Spain

#318 Jul 12, 2010
Fair Game wrote:
Have you actually managed to get your own "paper" published in a peer reviewed journal yet?
Have you?
Hmm, you probably believe Topix readers peer review your, "papers."
As you know, I keep a list of some of your best quotes.
Here are a few:
"dumbfuck"
"show me the way to home"
"Tear you lazy arse away from talk radio,"
"Like the little pixies making camp fires in the clouds? "
"I doubt you'd know a fact if it bit you on the arse. "
"Because you're a slimy troll."
"And you're an a**holes"
"You can't- because you're full of shit. "
"retarded baboon"
"gibbering poop slinger deniers"
"That would be because you're too pig-ignorant to read the facts."
"Pond scum has more ethics."
"Deniers slander, lie and misrepresent."
"You're full of shit- all you do is throw turds in the hope that some might stick. If one doesn't, you just pick it up and throw it again."
"A clueless dumbfuck can't be bothered to look at the graph?"
"Learn to spell the word first, fuckwit."
"McIntyre is a sneaky c*nt."
"I do condemn the little shits like you ..."
"Imbecile."
"And your problem is that you're an illiterate moron"
"You are talking out of your arse."
Up yours, chum"
"Bollocks we have........"
"What a piece of shit you are. "

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 16
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Oceanography Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Inter-decadal Pacific Oscillation Explains Glob... Apr '15 SpaceBlues 1
News Japanese reactor radiation detected off B.C. coast Apr '15 RDL 2
News Shrinking of Ice Shelves Raises Sea Level Concerns Apr '15 Earthling-1 10
News Pakistan earthquake island belching poisonous gas (Sep '13) Mar '15 MOMIN ANSARI 17
News Head of Episcopal Church: Denying Climate Chang... Mar '15 Cordwainer Trout 2
News Women in Oceanography: Lots of Students, Not So... Mar '15 SpaceBlues 1
News Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought (Jul '09) Feb '15 Earthling-1 3,326
More from around the web