[LINK] The Dangers of Exec Summaries - Was - Web Crashing
TKoltai
tomk at unwired.com.au
Mon Jul 2 08:48:24 AEST 2012
> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Richard Archer
> Sent: Sunday, 1 July 2012 5:15 PM
> To: link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Web Crashing - Was - In Retirement
>
>
> Here it is again with the headers sorted.
>
> On 1/07/12 2:48 PM, TKoltai wrote:
> > I could repeat my Volcano CO2 output calculations, but think that
> > linkers that have the IQ to not mindlessly follow the herd
> should do
> > it themselves...
>
> I did this when the Icelandic volcano erupted.
>
> Turned out the volume of CO2 emitted from the volcano was
> approximately
> the same amount of CO2 not emitted from the grounded planes.
>
> Human CO2 emissions dwarf volcanic emissions.
>
http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf
...R.
OK, well I hardly know where to start... Sadly, because of length and
long words, most of you won’t read it.
I said that Linkers should do their own calculations. I didn’t suggest
dragging out one summary conclusion written for school kids.
The paper offered as proof is from a staffer at the USGS: Terry Gerlach,
(Cascades Volcano Observatory
(Emeritus), U.S. Geological Survey, Vancouver, Wash.;) and is so full of
innacuracies... That even a dumbass layman like me can pick them up...
Richard, possibly you are prepared to accept the conclusions of a paper
targeted at the average pleb wherein the source references are not
available, where the author makes outlandish claims by ignoring most of
the data, but I and it would seem even his fellow researchers, [Edmond]
studying the same volcanic eruption that he did, apparently are not.
We could examine the following statement from the paper:
Quote/
So, for a few hours during paroxysms,
individual volcanoes may emit about
as much or more CO2 than human activities.
But volcanic paroxysms are ephemeral,
while anthropogenic CO2 is emitted relentlessly
from ubiquitous sources. On average,
humanity’s ceaseless emissions release an
amount of CO2 comparable to the 0.01 gigaton
of the 1980 Mount St. Helens paroxysm
every 2.5 hours and the 0.05 gigaton of the
1991 Mount Pinatubo paroxysm every 12.5
hours. /Quote
Obviously this man hasn't been to Salton Sea or Rotorua and has no idea
that most of the gasses that emit from under the earth come from
fumarolic vents, constantly.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acOrXCqdnmY]
For a Geo-physicist, he is either deliberately misdirecting people or
his experience is only with Kilauea, Pinatubo and Mt. Hood.
A discussion of where the CO2 comes from is offered by [Casey 2011]:
Quote/
At continental rift zones, where an entire continent is being pulled
apart by divergent mantle convection, magma rising to fill the rift is
enriched in CO2 from deep mantle sources (Wilson, 1989, p. 333).
Oldoinyo Lengai is an example of a continental rift zone volcano, which
has above average CO2 outgassing at 2.64 megatons of CO2 or 720 KtC per
annum (Koepenick et al., 1996).
...
The estimation of worldwide volcanic CO2 emission is undermined by a
severe shortage of data. To make matters worse, the reported output of
any individual volcano is itself an estimate based on limited rather
than complete measurement. One may reasonably assume that in each case,
such estimates are based on a representative and statistically
significant quantity of empirical measurements. Then we read statements,
such as this one courtesy of the USGS (2010):
"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). This estimate includes both subaerial and
submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts."
In point of fact, the total worldwide estimate of roughly 55 MtCpa is by
one researcher, rather than "scientists" in general. More importantly,
this estimate by Gerlach (1991) is based on emission measurements taken
from only seven subaerial volcanoes and three hydrothermal vent sites.
Yet the USGS glibly claims that Gerlach's estimate includes both
subaerial and submarine volcanoes in roughly equal amounts. Given the
more than 3 million volcanoes worldwide indicated by the work of Hillier
& Watts (2007), one might be prone to wonder about the statistical
significance of Gerlach's seven subaerial volcanoes and three
hydrothermal vent sites. If the statement of the USGS concerning
volcanic CO2 is any indication of the reliability of expert consensus,
it would seem that verifiable facts are eminently more trustworthy than
professional opinion. /Quote
In the above quoted "for the plebs" paper, Gerlach states that
Quote/
Global estimates of the annual
present-day CO2 output of the Earth’s degassing subaerial and submarine
volcanoes
range from 0.13 to 0.44 billion metric tons (gigatons) per year
[Gerlach, 1991; Allard,
1992; Varekamp et al., 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and
Tolstikhin, 1998]; the
preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from
0.15 to 0.26 gigaton
per year. Other aggregated volcanic CO2 emission rate
estimates—published
In 18 studies since 1979 as subaerial, arc, and
mid-oceanic ridge estimates—are Consistent with the global estimates.
For more information,
see the background, table, and references in the online supplement to
this Eos
issue (http://www.agu.org/eos_elec/).
Anthropogenic CO2 emissions—responsible
for a projected 35 gigatons of CO2
in 2010 [Friedlingstein et al., 2010]—
clearly dwarf all estimates of the annual
CO2 emissions of nations /Quote
Unfortunately, the quoted resource is not available.
If that were all, I would suggest that Mr. Gerlach's paper was
interesting but short on verifiable data and wasn’t worth the cost of
publishing it. (Think about it... If I quoted a link and it wasn’t
available, how many of you would jump down my throat ???)
However, I feel bound to add additional griss to the mill...
Here I return to (Casey, 2011)...
Lets start by discussing CO2 global sampling sites,
Quote/
Volcanic CO2 emission raises some serious doubts concerning the
anthropogenic origins of the rising atmospheric CO2 trend. In fact, the
location of key CO2 measuring stations (Keeling et al., 2005; Monroe,
2007) in the vicinity of volcanoes and other CO2 sources may well result
in the measurement of magmatic CO2 rather than a representative sample
of the Troposphere. For example, Cape Kumukahi is located in a
volcanically active province in Eastern Hawaii, while Mauna Loa
Observatory is on Mauna Loa, an active volcano - both observatories
within 50km of the highly active Kilauea and its permanent 3.2 MtCO2pa
plume. Samoa is within 50 km of the active volcanoes Savai'i and/or
Upolo, while Kermandec Island observatory is located within 10 km of the
active Raoul Island volcano.
Observatories located within active volcanic provinces are not the only
problem. There is also the problem of pressure systems carrying volcanic
plumes several hundred kilometers to station locations. For example, the
observatory in New Zealand, located somewhere along the 41st parallel,
is within 250 km of Tanaki and the entire North Island active volcanic
province. Low pressure system centres approaching and high pressure
system centres departing the Cook Strait will displace volcanic plumes
from the North island to the South Island.
Another class of problem for monitoring stations plagues "Christmas
Island", which is actually Kiribati Island (02º00'N, 157º20'W) where the
Clipperton Fracture Zone (Taylor, 2006) crosses the Christmas Ridge and
is nowhere near Christmas Island (10º29'S, 105º38'E; located on the
other side of Australia, 10,000 km due west of Kiribati). Christmas
Ridge is formed in a concentration of Pacific Seamounts. Extraordinary
numbers of seamounts are volcanically active (Hillier & Watts, 2007).
Moreover, active fracture zones also offer a preferred escape route for
magmatic CO2, as this CO2 also finds its way into aquifers (eg.
Giggenbach et al., 1991), which can be cut by fracture zones that
consequently provide a path to the surface (Morner & Etiope, 2002). This
may raise doubts concerning measurements taken at the La Jolla
observatory, which is located near the focal point of a radial fault
zone extending seaward from the San Andreas Fault (see imagery sourced
to SIO, NOAA, USN, NGA, & GEBCO by Europa Technologies & Inegi, for
Google Earth).
Amundsen Scott South Pole Station appears to be well separated by 1300
km from the volcanic lineation extending along Antarctica's Pacific
Coast (From the Ross Shelf to the Antarctic Peninsula), However,
Antarctic volcanoes are not nearly as well mapped as those in more
populated regions, such as Japan. In any case, the strong circumpolar
winds that delay mixing will inevitably concentrate Antarctica's
volcanic CO2 emissions over the Antarctic continent, including Amundsen
Station. The same potential problem exists with the observatory at Alert
in Northern Canada, because it is located inside the circumpolar wind
zone along with the Arctic Rift and thousands of venting seamounts along
key parts of the Northwest Passage.
That leaves us with Point Barrow, arguably the only CO2 monitoring
station whose CO2 measurements are unlikely to be influenced by magmatic
gas plumes. However, the Canada Basin, extending seaward from Point
Barrow, is also referred to as "the Hidden Ocean" because of poor
access, which consequently leaves us with very little information about
the sea floor in this region. The high probability of active seamounts
in the vicinity of Point Barrow has not been ruled out, and in view of
the fact that the other observatories probably experience significant
skew due to magmatic CO2, it would not be unreasonable to remain
skeptical until this possibility has been ruled out.
This question of volcanic skew in CO2 measurements has been raised a
number of times, in addition to other more serious allegations
(Bacastow, 1981; Jaworowski et al., 1992; Segalstad, 1996).
/Quote
Casey with additional discourse on Number of Volcanoes and CO2 emissions
bythose Volcanoes...
Quote/
This is not an isolated case. Kerrick (2001) takes a grand total of 19
subaerial volcanoes, which on p. 568 is described as only 10% of "more
than 100 subaerial volcanoes". It is interesting to observe that Kerrick
(2001) leaves out some of the more notable volcanoes (eg. Tambora,
Krakatoa, Mauna Loa, Pinatubo, El Chichon, Katmai, Vesuvius, Agung,
Toba, etc.). Nevertheless, despite these omissions Kerrick calculates
2.0-2.5 x 1012 mol of annual CO2 emissions from all subaerial volcanoes,
which is understated on the assumption that the sample is from the most
active volcanic demographic. This is in spite of the fact that eight of
the world's ten most active volcanoes are omitted from Kerrick's study
(Klyuchevskoy Karymsky, Shishaldin, Colima, Soufriere Hills, Pacaya,
Santa Maria, Guagua Pichincha, & Mount Mayon). At 44.01g/mol, 2.0-2.5 x
1012 mol of CO2 amounts to a total of 24-30 MtCpa - less than 0.05% of
total industrial emissions (7.8 GtCpa according to IPCC, 2007). My main
criticism of Kerrick's guess is that it putatively covers only 10% of a
highly variable phenomenon on land, and with the cursory dismissal of
mid oceanic ridge emissions, ignores all other forms of submarine
volcanism altogether. If we take the Smithsonian Institute's list of
more than 1000 potentially active subaerial volcanoes worldwide,
Kerrick's 10% is reduced to 1-3%.
According to Batiza (1982), Pacific mid-plate seamounts number between
22,000 and 55,000, of which 2,000 are active volcanoes. However, none of
the more than 2,000 active submarine volcanoes have been discussed in
Kerrick (2001). Furthermore, Kerrick (2001) justifies the omission of
mid oceanic ridge emissions by claiming that mid oceanic ridges
discharge less CO2 than is consumed by mid oceanic ridge hydrothermal
carbonate systems. In point of fact, CO2 escapes carbonate formation in
these hydrothermal vent systems in such quantities that, under special
conditions, it accumulates in submarine lakes of liquid CO2 (Sakai,
1990; Lupton et al., 2006; Inagaki et al., 2006). Although these lakes
are prevented from escaping directly to the surface or into solution in
the ocean, there is nothing to prevent superheated CO2 that fails to
condense from dissolving into the seawater or otherwise making its way
to the surface. It is a fact that a significant amount of mid oceanic
ridge emissions are not sequestered by hydrothermal processes; a fact
which is neglected by Kerrick (2001), who contends that mid oceanic
ridges may be a net sink for CO2. This may well sound reasonable except
for the rather small detail that seawater in the vicinity of
hydrothermal vent systems is saturated with CO2 (Sakai, 1990) and as
seawater elsewhere is not saturated with CO2, it stands to reason that
this saturation is sourced to the hydrothermal vent system. If the vent
system consumed more CO2 than it emitted, the seawater in the vicinity
of hydrothermal vent systems would be CO2 depleted.
Morner & Etiope (2002) published a somewhat more representative estimate
of subaerial volcanogenic CO2 output based on a more comprehensive
selection and found as a bare minimum that subaerial volcanogenic CO2
emission is on the order of 163MtCpa. Morner & Etiope (2002) also
provide a much better explanation of how CO2 is cycled through the
mantle and the lithosphere. However, this still does not account for
active volcanic emissions and remains vulnerable to eruptive
variability. Based on data reproduced in Shinohara (2008), there were on
average about five subaerial volcanic eruptions every year producing an
average of 300KtSpa (kilotons of sulphur per year) from 1979-1989.
Shinohara (2008) also presents molar ratios of CO2, SO2, & H2S from
which, via the same academic daring as Gerlach (1991) and Kerrick
(2001), we might derive an average ratio of 3.673 mol carbon for every
mol of sulphur in gaseous volcanic emissions. That would loosely
translate to 1.376KtC for every 1.000KtS. This gives us a figure of
around 2MtCpa for minor volcanic activity based on SO2 emission events
reported in Shinohara (2008). However, applying the same statistical
assumption to some of the more notable eruptions of recent history,
contrasted with one or two slightly older examples, gives us the
following estimates:
Year Volcano Mean Sulphurous Output Source Est. Carbon output
during year(s) of eruption
1883AD Krakatoa 38 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 26.14
MtCpa
1815AD Tambora 70 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 48.16 MtCpa
1783AD Laki 130 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 89.44 MtCpa
1600AD Huaynaputina 48 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 33.02
MtCpa
1452AD Kuwae 150 MtH2SO4pa Witter & Self (2007) 67.40 MtCpa
934AD Eldja 110 MtSO2 Shinohara (2008) 75.68 MtCpa
1645BC Minoa 125 MtSO2pa Shinohara (2008) 86.00 MtCpa
circa 71,000BP Toba 1100 MtH2SO4pa Zielenski et al. (1996) 494.24
MtCpa
Notice how all but one of the individual annual volcanogenic carbon
outputs, estimated above, dwarf the global subaerial volcanogenic carbon
outputs estimated by both Gerlach (1991) & Kerrick (2001). Even the
Morner & Etiope (2002) subaerial estimate (163 MtCpa) is shaken by most
of these figures and dwarfed by one. If this is not enough evidence of
just how unreliable volcanic emission estimates can be, let us take a
closer look at my 89 MtCpa estimate for the 1783AD Laki eruption.
Consider the difference it makes if, instead of using the average ratio
by weight for carbon and sulphur emissions I derived from Shinohara
(2008), we take the ratio we use for the Laki estimate from more direct
observations. Agustsdottir & Brantley (1994) studied emissions from
Grimsvotn, from which Laki extends as a fissure, and found that
Grimsvotn outgasses 53 KtCpa for 5.3 KtSpa. In other words, the weight
of carbon emitted at Grimsvotn is ten times that of the sulphur emitted
there. This would extend to Laki, which shares the same source, and is
described by Agustsdottir & Brantley (1994) as a fairly stable ratio. By
this ratio, Laki's 130 Mt of sulphur dioxide in 1783AD translates to an
emission of 650 MtCpa that year. This demonstrates just how much
uncertainty is involved when trying to audit the volcanic contribution
to the "carbon budget".
As you can see, volcanic systems are diverse and unpredictable. They
cannot be statistically second-guessed for the same reason that lottery
numbers cannot be statistically second-guessed. This in itself raises
serious doubt concerning the reliability of volcanic carbon dioxide
emission estimates. This is especially problematic when significant
elements of the estimates, such as passive submarine volcanic emission,
all active volcanic emission, and at least 96% of passive subaerial
emissions, are based on statistical assumptions rather than on any
actual measurement.
/Quote
Sorry Richard, if you quote Rrubbish science to prove a point, I
reserve the right to correct the rubbish science.
Let us summarise again with Casey...
Quote/
catastrophism. It would seem that in most examples of pseudo-science, a
catastrophe is invoked for the purpose of escaping scrutiny. More than
being a powerful motivator, fear is a potent decoy and in this sense a
powerful method of hiding contradictory evidence and the faults in the
logic. Some notable exceptions to the usual examples of catastrophic
pseudo-theory, are the expanding earth theory and the the idea that the
next magnetic reversal will end computerised civilisation as we know it.
The Expanding Earth Theory was originally invoked to challenge the Plate
Tectonics hypotheses at a time when it lacked evidence of subduction.
The idea that a magnetic reversal may end computerised civilisation as
we know it, is quite possibly wishful thinking on the part of its
proponents.
A surprising amount of modern pseudoscience is coming out of the
environmental sector. Perhaps it should not be so surprising given that
environmentalism is political rather than scientific. However, time and
again, we hear the argument that we must act before the science is
researched just in case the hypothesis is correct and catastrophe is
about to strike. Often enough, the research concerning many of the
claims has already been done, and shows that such imaginary catastrophes
are little more than sensationalised science fiction. Yet, whenever such
objections are brought to bear, the evidence is deftly sidestepped by
attacks on the person's character or dubious claims that experts know
more. Such ad homenim arguments are inherently dishonest because, by its
very design, ad homenim sidesteps and censors the facts by focussing the
argument on the person. The only reason to avoid discussing the facts in
debate is if the facts are clearly inconvenient. In the case of the
so-called "environmentalists", this ultimately leads to the denial of a
great many verifiable facts. Such denials occur so often in field of
geology that I think the term geology denier is most apt. Assertions of
the geology deniers include the claims that:
* Temperatures of the twentieth centrury are unprecedented
[contrary to the Phanerozoic record]
* Carbon dioxide levels of the twentieth century are unprecedented
[contrary to the Phanerozoic record]
* Carbon dioxide inhibits plant growth
[numerous studies show otherwise]
* Global warming causes mass extinctions
[which actually correlate with cooling]
* Global warming causes desertification
[so why is aridity a feature of ice ages instead?]
* Tuvalu's putative inundation is due to rising sea levels
[as opposed to volcanic subsidence]
* Kilimanjaro's ice is melting due to global warming
[as opposed to ablation due to regional deforestation]
* Fourier fathered the greenhouse effect, likening the atmosphere to
the glass of a greenhouse
[when Fourier actually argued the contrary]
* Tyndall measured thermal absorption in gases, thereby proving the
"Greenhouse Effect"
[when Tyndall actually measured opacity]
* The "Greenhouse Effect" is a valid concept of Physics wih
experimental confirmation
[so why is it missing from physics textbooks?]
* The atmospheric impact of volcanic carbon dioxide can be
isotopically distinguished from fossil fuel carbon dioxide
[when we don't even have a statistically significant average
volcanic carbon isotope ratio]
* Estimates of volcanic contributions to atmospheric carbon dioxide
include measurements of submarine volcano emissions
[when the source literature explicitly admits a lack of such
measurements]
* There are no natural CFCs
[when volcanic and biological CFC production is well documented]
In all cases, the above statements (in italics) are obvious fictions
that even a superficial review of the scientific literature can
overturn. Yet they continue to be propagated by self proclaimed
"environmentalists" despite the fact that they have long been refuted by
scientific research. The articles presented here on this site review the
science that refutes these claims, but this is only the tip of the
iceberg, and one must ask how competant scientists could possibly dream
up such obvious fiction. The modern "environmentally" motivated
"science" of anthropogenic global warming is either based on
incompetance and charlatanism or lies and dishonesty. I will endeavour
to leave the interpretation to you. However, suffice it to say that such
a pitiful excuse for science as we see in modern "environmentalism"
compells us to ask for the material evidence every single time an
assertion is claimed to be scientific. We may yet ponder how a single
lobby outperforms and outclasses all other pseudosciences put together
for sheer diversity and volume of brazen disinformation. Yet the most
profound consequence of subverting empirical science with political
propaganda is the denial of scientific fact, and the deprecation of the
very empiricism of scientific endeavour, without which technological
progress is impossible.
/Quote
Casey 2011 http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
TomK
More information about the Link
mailing list