Plimer exposed as a fraud

Ian Plimer’s performance in his debate with Monbiot has to be seen to be believed. Rather than admit to making any error at all, Plimer ducks, weaves, obfuscates, recites his favourite catch phrase, tries to change the subject and fabricates some more. When confronted with the fact that the USGS says (backed with scientific papers) that human activities emit 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes, Plimer claims that the USGS doesn’t count underwater volcanoes. When told that the USGS specifically said that they do count undersea volcanoes, Plimer invented a story about how the nature of the rocks under the ocean proves that there must be unobserved emissions. Needless to say, this is not acceptable conduct for a scientist.

The University of Adelaide’s code of practice on research misconduct states:

Misrepresentation : A researcher or reviewer shall not with intent to deceive, or in reckless disregard for the truth:

(a) state or present a material or significant falsehood;
(b) omit a fact so that what is stated or presented as a whole states or presents a material or significant falsehood.

Elsewhere, James Randerson interviewed Plimer and

found him to be one of the most difficult and evasive interviewees I have spoken to in my career, frequently veering off on tangents rather than answering the question I had put.

Randerson has an another example of Plimer refusing to admit to even the most blatant error:

Elsewhere in the book, Plimer appears to have conflated a US temperature record and the global average temperature. On page 99 he writes “Nasa now states that [...] the warmest year was 1934.” The Nasa dataset he is referring to covers the US only but he seems to be referring to the world average.

Again, Plimer does not appear to accept that the world is warming. But in fact, the hottest year on record is 1998 and eight of the 10 hottest years ever recorded have occurred this century.

When I put the mistake to him he responded: “The 1930s in North America and probably the rest of the world were a hot period of time.” But what about increased global average temperature since then? “That has been disputed by many of my colleagues who I have a great regard for because they’ve been the people involved in putting measurements together … I do dispute that as do many other people who are far more qualified in atmospheric sciences than I.”

Bob Burton tracks down the story of how the AAP reported Plimer’s speech before it happened. As you might have guessed, the journalist did a cut and paste from a press release put out by a PR firm.

On Saturday the Sydney Morning Herald printed a report from Copenhagen by Ian Plimer on a news page. My letter to them:

Please cancel my subscription to the SMH.

The SMH simply does not care about the accuracy of what it publishes. You obviously did not bother to check whether there was any basis to Ian Plimer’s dishonest smears of climate scientist, allowing him to falsely accuse them of fraud and “mafia-type thuggery”.

I don’t know why you think your business model should involve deceiving your readers, but I’m not buying it or your paper any more.

Comments

  1. #1 zoot
    December 28, 2009

    Once again, years of research by qualified scientists debunked in a moment by a man in the street. Wondrous stuff DA.

  2. #2 dhogaza
    December 28, 2009

    Can someone please explain how it is possible that human activities emit 130 times as much CO2 as is outgassed from the Earth’s interior through volcanic activity, considering that only 5%. of atmospheric carbon comes from anthropogenic activities?

    Show me a billion year old SUV and you might be on to something.

  3. #3 luminous beauty
    December 28, 2009

    >Can someone please explain how it is possible that human activities emit 130 times as much CO2 as is outgassed from the Earth’s interior through volcanic activity, considering that only 5%. of atmospheric carbon comes from anthropogenic activities?

    [Yes.](http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle.php)

  4. #4 luminous beauty
    December 28, 2009

    >Thanks for the link to Kerrick’s paper Marco, it confirms that the primary source for atmospheric carbon/CO2 is outgassing from the Earth’s interior at midocean ridges…

    Not so much, and more to the point:

    >In quantifying the role of MOR systems in the global
    carbon cycle, it is vital to consider that these systems are
    not only a CO2 source (by magma degassing) but also a
    sink for CO2. Hydrothermal activity at mid-ocean ridges
    causes CO2 to be sequestered in carbonates [Staudigel et
    al., 1989; Caldeira, 1995; Alt and Teagle, 1999; Kerrick
    and Connolly, 2001b]. On the basis of the quantity of
    carbonate the CO2 sequestration of the oceanic crust is
    estimated at ~3.5·10^12 mol/yr [Alt and Teagle, 1999].
    Because this consumption exceeds the estimated MOR
    magmatic CO2 degassing flux (~2 ± 1·10^12 mol/yr),
    MOR magmatism would not provide an uncompensated
    source for CO2. __In fact, MOR systems may instead be a
    net sink for CO2.__

  5. #5 Donald Oats
    December 29, 2009

    Does anyone know who is funding the Plimer tours around UK, Europe, inland and rural Australia? Is there a PR firm coordinating Plimer’s efforts with the other sham sceptics?

    Don.

    PS: The place looks much cleaner after removing the unintelligible pile (of posts) left by birdbrain – thanks Tim.

  6. #6 Devils Advocate
    December 29, 2009

    Thanks for your help Luminous Beauty, the link to the NASA Earth Observatory site eloquently outlines the Carbon Cycle. It also confirms that the primary source for atmospheric carbon/CO2 is outgassing from the Earth’s interior not the small amount that humanity emits;

    “The carbon is then returned to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide during volcanic eruptions.”

    Luminous Beauty, that is an interesting extract from Kerricks paper regarding the carbon cycle, it even gives rough estimates for some of the sequestration figures. The sequestration that Kerrick is referring to, is of carbon that has been emitted into the atmosphere, primarily from volcanoes. Sorry to be persistent here, but if as stated above a fraud has been committed, then it needs to be exposed. Your above links do not point to any “scientific papers” that show “human activities emit 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes”, so as previously requested can you please help me find some.

  7. #7 Eli Rabett
    December 29, 2009

    Eli takes it that Devils Advocate is either a Dunning Kruger poster kid, or an outstanding example of Artificial Stupidity Systems (ASS).

    Here on Earth, darling Devil, we distinguish between things that have added CO2 to the atmosphere over millions of years (volcanic activity) and things that have added CO2 to the atmosphere over a hundred years (human activity).

    -Currently the rate at which humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere exceeds the rate for volcanoes by about 130 times.

    -This was not true 4-500 years ago

    -Humans have increased the rate at which their activity adds CO2 to the air a hundred fold in the last hundred years by burning fossil fuels

    -We are talking about current rates and amounts.

    -Somehow Eli suspects this will not get through to our ASS

  8. #8 TrueSceptic
    December 29, 2009

    387 Devil,

    You are misrepresenting [that site](http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle4.php).

    Of course, nearly all of the CO2 in the Carbon Cycle is of natural origin, but the overwhelming majority of CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1850 has been the result of human activity, volcanic activity producing only minute quantities since then. This is about 38% of the current atmospheric total. This, in turn, is only about 1/2 of the CO2 we actually produce, the balance being absorbed by the oceans and the biosphere. If all of it stayed in the atmosphere, the figure would be much higher.

  9. #9 Hugh
    December 29, 2009

    “The global hydrothermal CO, flux from subareal environments probably exceeds 1012 mol yr-1 and may be comparable to that contributed by volcanic vents (i.e., 2-4 X 1012 mol yr-1), as estimated by Le Cloarec and Marty and Gerlach. The total present-day earth degassing flux of CO, may balance the amount estimated to be consumed by chemical weathering.” [scientific equivocation emphasised, just in case you thought you're the first to notice it]

    SEWARD, T. M. & KERRICK, D. M. (1996) Hydrothermal CO2 emission from the Taupo Volcanic Zone, New Zealand. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 139, 1-2 105-113

    There you are DA, a ‘starter for ten’. If you look really hard you might be lucky enough to find that even good old Axel Morner reckons on global volcanic/lithospheric CO2 emissivity measures in the 1-2% range of anthro emissions.

    However…don’t you go forgetting about those inconvenient isotope ratios now!

  10. #10 dhogaza
    December 29, 2009

    DA, let me repeat:

    Show me a billion year old SUV and you might be on to something.

    Perhaps this will seem a bit less obscure if you study Eli’s and TrueSceptic’s posts … and then re-read the paper you point to with understanding.

  11. #11 luminous beauty
    December 29, 2009

    DA,

    >The sequestration that Kerrick is referring to, is of carbon that has been emitted into the atmosphere, primarily from volcanoes.

    The part I was referring to was sequestration from carbon emitted into the ocean from Mid Oceanic Ridge (MOR) volcanic activity. Less than none is emitted into the atmosphere.

    Anthropogenic CO2 as of 2006 is [~8230](http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2006.ems) million metric tonnes of carbon or [~30204](http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html#Q9) million metric tonnes of CO2 per year and going up. At [~44g/mole,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co2) that works out to [A]~6.86 · 10^14 moles of CO2/yr.

    From Kerrick, et al., average contemporary atmospheric flux from sub-aerial volcanoes is [B]~2.0 – 2.5 · 10^12 moles of CO2/yr.

    Divide [A] by [B] and what number do you get? I think the 130X number may be a bit out of date.

  12. #12 janama
    December 29, 2009

    If Plimer’s right, that volcanos emit 130x as much CO2 as our burning of fossil fuels, then sinks are taking up 99.6% of the CO2 released to the atmosphere.

    If this were true, oceans would be acidifying at a stunningly fast pace.

    But … it’s not. We know this from observations.

    So where is all that CO2 going?

    Nothing about Plimer’s claims makes any sense.

    That’s because no one here has read his damn book. This is what he says:

    The CO2 from tens of thousands of submarine hot springs associated with these submarine basalt volcanoes dissolves in the high pressure deep ocean water and does not bubble to the surface. Water at the bottom of the oceans is undersaturated in dissolved CO2 , hence very large volumes of CO2 can dissolve. One hot spring can release far more CO2 than a 1000mW power station. page 208.

  13. #13 jakerman
    December 29, 2009

    Plimer:

    >*”Volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world’s cars and industries combined.”* ([Monbiot](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/05/climate-change-scepticism) and [Enting citing](http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer2a0.pdf) Heaven + Earth, p413)

  14. #14 Tim Lambert
    December 29, 2009

    janama, I have read Plimer’s book. From [my review](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php):

    >p382 “In fact, satellites and radiosondes show that there is no global warming.[1918]” Woohoo! at last a cite. Trouble is, it says exactly the opposite of what Plimer claims

    >p391 claims Hadley Centre has shown that warming stopped in 1998. Hadley says:

    >>Anyone who thinks global warming has stopped has their head in the sand.

    >p413 claims volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans. No cite! This one was in GGWS. Plimer’s a geologist. You’d think he would at least know something about volcanoes.

  15. #15 jakerman
    December 29, 2009

    Enting actually cites Tim Lambert and David K, in his critquie of Plimer on the quote I provided above.

    And speacial thanks to Tim and others for their sacrifice which saved me the trouble of reading it!

  16. #16 Michael
    December 29, 2009

    Janama @393 gives a perfect rendition of ‘skeptical credulity’.

    Plimers illogical stance is that “very large volumes of CO2” from submarine vents are dissolved in the deep ocean waters. Yet this somehow results in a situation where “Water at the bottom of the oceans is undersaturated in dissolved CO2“.

    As far as I can work out, Plimer starts this nonsense with an observable fact – dissolved CO2 is higher in surface waters – but goes on to murder it in an ideological pique.
    Our puny anthropogenic CO2 emissions have raised atmospheric levels. But with Plimers volcanoes pouring 130x greater CO2 out (much of it undersea from what he seems to imply), the ocean bottoms remain relatively “undersaturated”. Maybe, if the CO2 is being incorporated into rocks, but Plimer explicitly argues that it is being dissolved in sea-water – his great mythical carbon sink.

    A simple pH test might detect this, one would think?

  17. #17 Bruce Sharp
    December 29, 2009

    I suppose it’s beating a dead horse, but still…

    Let’s assume that volcanoes are generating 130x as much CO2 as humans. If the vast majority of that CO2 vanishes in the ocean depths, then the claim wouldn’t be wrong… it would just be totally irrelevant.

    To my unscientific mind, CO2 that dissolves at the bottom of the ocean does one thing and one thing only: it turns the herring red.

  18. #18 TrueSceptic
    December 29, 2009

    395 Tim,

    Yet again I must repeat the fact that even Durkin removed the volcano claim from TGGWS when he realised it was unsupportable.

    If Durkin did that, where does this leave Plimer?

    (Why should it be necessary to explain the same simple logical errors and lies over and over to ASS idiots?)

  19. #19 TrueSceptic
    December 29, 2009

    397 Michael,

    Plus:-

    What does isotopic analysis tell us about the origin of the increased carbon in the oceans and the atmosphere;

    What does it matter when the CO2 GHG theory is a hoax anyway? No amount of CO2 should matter, right?

  20. #20 Devils Advocate
    December 29, 2009

    Sorry to change the subject guys as we can argue about the broad merits of AGW forever. Can we stick specifically to the post topic about a fraud and Pilmers reaction to there being “scientific papers” from the “USGS” stating that “human activities emit 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes”.(the papers do not specifically prove that)

    It is the USGS that put out the figures that human activity emits 130 x volcanoes, so they have to prove it. Can someone show me where Pilmer stated that volcanoes emit 130 x human activity?

    My understanding is Pilmer stated merely that volcanoes emit more than human activity (although not specifically quantified). There is plenty of evidence of that here;

    Trueskeptic, @ 389

    “Of course, NEARLY ALL of the CO2 in the Carbon Cycle is of natural origin, but the overwhelming majority of CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1850 has been the result of human activity, volcanic activity producing only minute quantities since then.”

    It seems like we are arguing semantics here, but by “natural origin” you mean primarily volcanic activity (as that is where nearly all carbon in the atmosphere originally comes from) i.e “nearly all” of the 385ppm of carbon in the atmosphere comes primarily from volcanic activity; and by “adding” you mean “nearly all” the 1.5ppm that is stored in the atmosphere annually comes from human activity.

    .

    388;

    “Here on Earth, darling Devil, we distinguish between things that have added CO2 to the atmosphere over millions of years (volcanic activity) and things that have added CO2 to the atmosphere over a hundred years (human activity).”

    Are we to ignore volcanic activity even though it has been happening for millions of years? If we ignore “things that have added CO2 into the atmosphere for millions of years (volcanic activity)”, then prima facie anything else is gong to appear to add more. Labelling someone a fraudster because they point out a deficiency of millions of years of evidence, is a fraud in itself..

  21. #21 Eli Rabett
    December 29, 2009

    Dear Devil, you do have problems with speed. The amount emitted in this century per year by people burning fossil fuels exceeds that emitted in a year this century by volcanoes by a factor of ~130. Try and twist that ASS

  22. #22 Michael
    December 29, 2009

    DA,

    Sorry I just repeated janama’s mix up on volcanoes vs. humans CO2 emissions.

    What Plimer has said is probably worse though. Not content to assert that volcanic emissions are greater than human, he also said that a single volcanic “cough” would emit more CO2 in one day than all the CO2 ever released by humans.

    Evidence for this amazing assertion: – nil.

    [Counter-evidence](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/do-you-believe-ian-plimer/): – previous super-volcano eruptions have had no measurable effect on atmospheric CO2 levels.

  23. #23 Devils Advocate
    December 29, 2009

    With due respect Mr Rabett, Someone is being accused of being a fraud because they pointed out THE FACT that volcanoes do indeed emit many times the amount of carbon that human activity emits. The statement that was put to Pilmer was “human activities emit 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes”. Not “human activities emit 130 times as much CO2″ in a year (which they do not , but that an issue for another time)? So (in this instance) there appears to be strong evidence here of a collusive character assassination on Pilmer.

  24. #24 jakerman
    December 30, 2009

    DA writes:

    >*It is the USGS that put out the figures that human activity emits 130 x volcanoes, so they have to prove it.*

    Answer has [been provided](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2169503).

    Lets get back to issue of fruad; it is Plimer who states without citation that:

    >*Volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world’s cars and industries combined.”*

    [And](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/do-you-believe-ian-plimer/)

    >*”Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day.”*

    [And](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-.php)
    >*”We cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes.”*

    Now DA, according to your rules of advocacy Pmliar put out these claims *”so [he must] prove it*.

    But on the contrary, theses statements have been demonstrated to be wrong. And what is [Pmlairs' response](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-.php)?

  25. #25 jakerman
    December 30, 2009

    DA now you are saying it is a ‘*FACT*” volcanoes do indeed emit many times the amount of carbon that human activity emits?

    In a discussion about climate change don’t you think you would be misleading people if you left out the time comparision? I.e. The fact is in several hundred years volcano produce more CO2 than humans currently do in one year.

    You’re a bit of a joke otherwise.

  26. #26 Devils Advocate
    December 30, 2009

    “don’t you think you would be misleading people if you left out the time comparision”

    Yes I do, but I am not the one who did it on TV, Monibidiot did, aided by Jones and the fraud is being continued by owner of this blog.

  27. #27 Michael
    December 30, 2009

    Fraud?

    The only fraud obvious so far is Plimers.

    As he himself notes, CO2 release from volcanoes has been going on for millions of years, so it can be viewed as a constant in the carbon-cycle.

    Anthropogenic contributions are the issue, being the new and additional variable in the carbon cycle, so Plimers attempt to muddy the waters by claiming volcanic emissions exceed human emissions is quite fraudulent.

    His additional claim of a single “volcanic cough” exceeding the sum total of all historical human CO2 emissions is preposterous beyond belief.

    Studies of the Pinatubo eruption showed that despite CO2 being emitted from volcanoes, there is a slight negative effect on atmosphereic C02 levels as a result of volcanic eruptions.

  28. #28 jakerman
    December 30, 2009

    >”don’t you think you would be misleading people if you left out the time comparision”

    As in:

    >*In a discussion about climate change don’t you think you would be misleading people if you left out the time comparision? I.e. The fact is in several hundred years volcano produce more CO2 than humans currently do in one year.*

    DA writes:

    >*Yes I do, but I am not the one who did it on TV, Monibidiot did, aided by Jones and the fraud is being continued by owner of this blog.*

    [You are](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2170820) “*the one who did it*”!

    How can you be in such blatant denial of what you have just written?

    Humans currently emit more CO2 than volcanoes. Period.

    The only wiggle room is if you say over eons when humans were emitting near zero carbon then volcanos emitted more. But Plimer didn’t say that. He push lies [like these](In a discussion about climate change don’t you think you would be misleading people if you left out the time comparision? I.e. The fact is in several hundred years volcano produce more CO2 than humans currently do in one year.).

    You’ve now demonstrated you’re a complete joke!

  29. #29 jakerman
    December 30, 2009

    Ernst, I love your spline work!

    How did you get all those millions of tonnes of CO2 to disappear over such short time periods?

    Did it make you curios how poorly CO2 measured correlate with ice cores? Weird how those bazar fluctuation you report just disappeared when we started measuring CO2 accurately.

    I love it when deniers bring out [Beck's CO2 chart](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/remember_eg_becks_dodgy.php). I think Beck’s work is best supported [by inferno](http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/04/co2-levels-may-have-been-over-2000ppm.html)!

  30. #30 Tim Lambert
    December 30, 2009

    I’ve deleted a couple of posts from a troll pretending to be EG Beck and Jaworowski

  31. #31 Devils Advocate
    December 30, 2009

    Sorry to upset anybody here, I am not a great fan of Pilmers, but on this particular point, the raw question which was asked of Pilmer; what emits more volcanoes or human activity? the answer is clearly volcanoes. You guys did not bring flux or time frames into the question, so Pilmer gave the correct answer to the specific asked. Whether the question was framed by malice or incompetence I do not know? Not withstanding other issues Tim Lambert has with Pilmer, calling him a fraud on this particular point is wrong and Tim should withdraw the remark and apologise.

  32. #32 jakerman
    December 30, 2009

    DA your not upsetting us, you’re [a case study of denial](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2170899). I’ll be referring others back to you as an example for weeks to come.

    Plimar has been asked for months to back up the claims in his book. He just keeps pushing the same fraud instead of supporting his claims. Try and rephrase [these quotes]((http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2170815) with your ample Orwellian Double speak.

    The questions put to Plimer here have a clear answer [That humans produce more CO2 than volcanoes] or a wiggle answer [That volcanoes used to produce more CO2 until human ramped up their emission]. Plimer gives neither of these.

    DA You’ve also exposed yourself as a fraud by repeating the same discredited claims.

    My advice to you is the same I gave Graeme Bird, if you believe your own double speak, then promote this video widely to vindicate Plimar.

    Monbiot:[Plimar] suggests that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than human beings. The US geological survey shows that human beings produce 130 times more carbon dioxide than volcanoes. And yet again and again, however many times it is pointed out to him, Ian keeps reporting this straightforward fraud, this fabrication that volcanoes produce more CO2.

    TONY JONES: *Let’s hear Ian Plimer respond to that. Do you stand by the claim in your book that volcanoes produce more CO2 than the world’s cars and industries combined?*

    IAN PLIMER: *Well I’m very heartened that a journalist is correcting me on my geology. Now Mr Monbiot wrote to me when I asked him some questions of science and said he was not qualified to answer these questions of science. So he’s a journalist and he’s asking me a scientific question. He has not read this book … *

    GEORGE MONBIOT: *Could you answer the question, please?*

    IAN PLIMER: *He has not read this book.*

    GEORGE MONBIOT: *Do you stand by your claim or not?*

    IAN PLIMER: *He has not – it is the height of bad manners to interrupt.*

    GEORGE MONBIOT: *Do you stand by your claim or not?*

    IAN PLIMER: *It is the height of bad manners to interrupt.*

    GEORGE MONBIOT: *Could you answer the question. Could you just answer the question.*

    TONY JONES: *George Monbiot, just hang on. I will ask the same question of you if I can because I did raise that.*

    IAN PLIMER: *And in this book I referred to a number of types of volcanoes. There are two types, and I know you haven’t read the book. He certainly hasn’t read the book …*

    TONY JONES: *It’s not true that I haven’t read your book, as I told you last time. I suspect that George Monbiot has also …*

    GEORGE MONBIOT: *And I have also read the book.*

    TONY JONES: *But I have actually read your book.*

    IAN PLIMER: *Well, let me make two points on this. On the chapter called Earth I talk about two volcanoes. One are the terrestrial volcanoes, which is the USGS reports on emissions of carbon dioxide, **but more than 85 per cent of the world’s volcanoes we do not measure**, we do not see, these are submarine volcanoes that release carbon dioxide and we deduce from the chemistry of the rocks how much carbon dioxide is released.*

    TONY JONES: *Can I ask you a question about that, if you don’t mind? Because one British journalist whom you quoted those exact figures to went back to the US geological survey after you told him about this 85 per cent figure, and asked he them to confirm their claim that actually 130 times the amount of CO2 is produced by man than volcanoes. The volcanologist Dr Terrance Gerlach confirmed that figure and said furthermore that in their counting they count the undersea volcanoes. So your response to that.*

    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.*

  33. #33 Michael
    December 30, 2009

    DA wrote:

    but on this particular point, the raw question which was asked of Pilmer; what emits more volcanoes or human activity? the answer is clearly volcanoes. You guys did not bring flux or time frames into the question, so Pilmer gave the correct answer to the specific asked

    It’s the correct answer assuming what “specific” exactly?

  34. #34 TrueSceptic
    December 30, 2009

    401 Devil,

    Either you cannot read or you are misrepresenting what I said. By “natural”, I mean *not* released by human activity. That natural “base level” has been around 280 ppm for many centuries; all the additional 106 ppm that takes us up to the current 386 ppm is anthropogenic. (I made a mistake with the %age: 106 is 38% of the 280 “base-level”, not of the current total of 386.)

    We know this from the quantities of fossil fuels we burn and from isotopic analysis.

    We also know that volcanoes emit insignificant amounts of CO2 because even large eruptions like Pinatubo do not show in CO2 records such as the Mauna Loa Keeling Curve, depite this being sensitive enough to show a seasonal cycle.

  35. #35 TrueSceptic
    December 30, 2009

    404 Devil,

    You are being perverse. Of course we mean per year when we use the present tense, i.e., emit/emits.

    Your claim

    Not “human activities emit 130 times as much CO2″ in a year (which they do not , but that an issue for another time)?

    has been shown to be false many times over.

    You, like Plimer, are a liar.

  36. #36 TrueSceptic
    December 30, 2009

    412 Devil,

    Again, you use the present tense, “what emits”.

    That means now, ongoing, year on year.

    If you had said “what has emitted” (over thousands of years), you would have a case, but that is not what you claim, nor what Plimer claims.

  37. #37 Michael
    December 30, 2009

    TS wrote:

    We also know that volcanoes emit insignificant amounts of CO2 because even large eruptions like Pinatubo do not show in CO2 records

    …and even the eruption of super-volcanoes in the past hasn’t led to a spike in atmospheric CO2.

    Plimer is a fraud. He even f**** it up when talking about his own field.

  38. #38 TrueSceptic
    December 30, 2009

    418 Michael,

    Quite so, but of course the denidiots will claim the figures are fixed, unreliable, whatever.

    At the same time they will support E-G Beck’s fantasy figures without a moment’s hesitation.

  39. #39 jakerman
    December 31, 2009

    >*Becks figures aren’t fantasy figures. They are actual readings. They are the historical record. He didn’t make them up.*

    Stephen your so precious! Care to Answer [my question to Beck?](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2170920)

  40. #40 Marco
    December 31, 2009

    Good grief, Stephen Yuretich, please tell me you were being extremely sarcastic! If not, how on earth could anyone take mining geologist Ian Plimer as the relevant authority on submarine volcanoes and their emissions over volcanologist Terrance Gerlach? Or take retired school teacher Ernst-Georg Beck’s summary of old measurements on poorly mixed groundlayers over a whole range of atmospheric chemists measuring CO2 levels on properly mixed air layers without local effects? (I find it ironic that you actually mention the UHI but not attack Beck, at least the former has been found by years of research to be very limited)

    Seriously, I truly wonder what has happened to humanity. It’s as if stupidity is the new norm, because you have to have an opinion on everything and accuracy and facts are irrelevant.

  41. #41 jakerman
    December 31, 2009
  42. #42 Chris O'Neill
    December 31, 2009

    Stephen Yuretich, have you ever heard of the concept of contamination? Look it up sometime. You may learn something.

  43. #43 jakerman
    December 31, 2009

    Stephen writes:

    >*The two studies that people are relying on are irrelevant, and do not provide evidence for their estimate.*

    [Here is the study](http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/2001RG000105.pdf) linked by Marco. As you can see it is “irrelevant” as it is focusing on the irrelevant topic of non-anthropogenic CO2 released from earth (including volcanoes). And as any reader will judge the author uses no evidence to support the calculations.

    Stephen continues:

    >*Why cite them at all if they are wrong? You want to at least cite studies that contain evidence, and that you don’t already know are wrong. If you are not dishonest you want to cite good and reasonable studies based on actual evidence.*

    Well Stephen knows they are wrong, and he doesn’t need evidence to know that!

    Stephen continues:
    < http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~tony/watts/downloads/HillierWatts2007GL029874.pdf>

    >*The above study is the relevant study. Since this one is based on actual evidence unlike the two everyone appears to be relying on.*

    And you can judge that it “*is the relevant study*”, by the way it provides no assessment of the CO2 released from volcanoes.

    Stephen continues:

    >*But the best thing to do would have been to ask Plimer. He’s the expert on these matters. Not any of the people on this thread.*

    Stephen, that is what Monbiot and Jones tried to do. Why did Plimer evade, dodge, delay, do everything but provide the evidence to support his misrepresentations? That’s right, Plimer is trying to avoid clarity and trying to get away with misleading people to save face.

  44. #44 Chris O'Neill
    December 31, 2009

    Stephen Yuretich, have you ever heard of the concept of contamination? ..

    I didn’t realize how many trees short of an orchard Stephen was when I wrote that.

  45. #45 Chris O'Neill
    December 31, 2009

    Marco:

    I find it ironic that you actually mention the UHI but not attack Beck, at least the former has been found by years of research to be very limited

    Even if you gave it a name like Urban CO2 Island, these delusionals still wouldn’t realize their cognitive dissonance.

  46. #46 P. Lewis
    December 31, 2009

    As to the iron core, well we expect to see iron cores whenever we have a magnetic field.

    Oh boy, hold this year’s Physics Nobel. Photons have iron cores!

  47. #47 jakerman
    December 31, 2009

    Stephen writes:

    >*That CO2 concentrations are higher in 1942 than today is a simple known fact. Taken straight from the historical record.*

    A simple known fact for those who get their science from whack-job blog sites or pseudo science laundered by E&E.

    In the world of credible fact checking than peer reivew, the [evidence shows](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-1-1.html) something quite different to what Stephen claims.

  48. #48 Antoni Jaume
    December 31, 2009

    I’ve seen a reference to
    [http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml) and it seems to clash with the rest of information about athmospheric CO2, any pointer on the validity of this article?

  49. #49 Joseph
    December 31, 2009

    Sorry to upset anybody here, I am not a great fan of Pilmers, but on this particular point, the raw question which was asked of Pilmer; what emits more volcanoes or human activity? the answer is clearly volcanoes

    Well, this is not a game you win with trickery. The spirit of the question and the intended interpretation of the answer do matter.

  50. #50 Marco
    December 31, 2009

    @Antoni Jaume:
    Knorr’s article does not really clash with much. The article merely concludes that the CO2 sinks are not (yet) overwhelmed. This does not mean that CO2 will not increase, but that it does not (yet) increase as much as some people had feared.

  51. #51 Tim Lambert
    December 31, 2009

    Stephen Yuretich is another of Graeme Bird’s sock puppets. I have deleted his posts.

  52. #52 Antoni Jaume
    December 31, 2009

    What I find at odds is “It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero.”, as it seems to imply that athmospheric (airborne) CO2 has NOT rised. So there would not be a correlation of CO2 and temperature.

  53. #53 Eli Rabett
    December 31, 2009

    He Jaume, pay the money and READ the article. Even better, join AGU for $20 and get free access. The issue here is

    Of every X tons of CO2 EMITTED, how much stays in the atmosphere.

    The fraction of CO2 emitted that STAYS in the atmosphere is ~50%

    So if you emit X tons X/2 tons stay in the atmosphere. The other X/2 tons is absorbed by the oceans and the biosphere

    Of course if you emit 3X tons, then 1.5 X tons stays in the atmosphere and 1.5X ton mixes into the other places.

    What the article is saying is that the 50% has been constant for a long time.

    The reason people are concerned is that there has been some indication that the fraction mixing into the oceans and biosphere has decreased, which would make the CO2 increase in the atmosphere much faster.

    Got that or are you going to dig in.

  54. #54 Antoni Jaume
    December 31, 2009

    Thanks Eli Rabett. I had seen in a spanish daily comment that reference, and the commenter said “Una publicación científica (está en inglés, lo siento), que demuestra la falacia del consenso científico con respecto al cambio climático:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

    Yo soy escéptico porque me doy cuenta de que este tipo de información está vetada, oficialmente no existen argumentos científicos en contra del cambio climático, lo cual es sencillamente una manipulación.” effectively claiming this disproved AGW.

  55. #55 Stu
    December 31, 2009

    Antioni, through Yahoo Babelfish’s rudimentary grasp of Spanish, I gather that the commenter who linked to that publication had already made up their mind about global warming. Hence they missed the point of the article and replaced its conclusions with what they wanted to believe.

    Eli explained it well but as English doesn’t appear to be your first language, I’ll put figures in. Suppose that in 1950 human activities emitted 1 gigatonne of CO2*, only 0.5 gigatonnes stayed in the atmosphere, and the other 0.5 was aborbed, mostly by the oceans. This leaves an airborne fraction of 50%. In 2000 these figures were 20 gigatonnes added by humans, of which 10 gigatonnes remained airborne*, so the airborne fraction stayed the same but the yearly increase in CO2 concentration has been getting bigger.

    *not actual figures, they’re just to illustrate the point. I don’t think they’re too far from reality though.

  56. #56 Stu
    December 31, 2009

    Niel, are you Graeme Bird?

    Regarding EG Beck’s collated record, of which you say “Results of faulty outlier measurements will cancel. The results of the Beck amalgamation are the actual historical record. ”

    Do you consider that the samples could have been contaminated by local sources? These include industry, transport, forests, and the increased concentrations you get from people breathing in a closed room.

    If there is a systematic bias towards higher concentrations due to contamination from the above sources*, then the claim that faulty outlier measurements will cancel is false. There was a systematic bias towards high measurements, mainly because the measurements were taking in the boundary layer of the atmosphere in heavily industrialised Europe.

    *And no doubt there is contamination, since we don’t see such wild swings in CO2 concentration in the free atmosphere away from local sources, which is what we’re interested in!

  57. #57 Hank Roberts
    December 31, 2009

    Did someone leave his computer logged in over the holidays?
    http://www.google.com/search?q=“Neil+Travis”+”Graeme+Bird”

  58. #58 Eli Rabett
    December 31, 2009

    Jaume (and everyone else) seriously consider joining AGU. It is dead cheap, you get the newsletter, EOS, with feature articles on a lot of interesting things, and you get access to many journals! A really good self Christmas gift.

  59. #59 Eli Rabett
    December 31, 2009

    Condolences Tim, Graeme has escaped the Marohasy Bog and is lose upon the internet.

    Graeme is, of course, part of the dual Artifical Stupidity Machine. We can expect Hissock at any time.

    As to Beck’s telephone book, the fact is that people could measure CO2 down to maybe 10 ppm by chemical titrations but

    a) Accuracy and precision sucked and were very dependent upon the chemist

    b) Since they did not understand the meteorology (as in the way the wind blows, the source of the CO2 and its dispersion, etc)

    As Ralph Keeling pointed out if you believe Beck, you are in fairy tale territory, since it would require flows of CO2 in and out of the atmosphere which are not physically possible.

    It should be added that Beck’s analysis also runs afoul of a basic accounting problem. Beck’s 11–year averages show large swings, including an increase from 310 to 420 ppm between 1920 and 1945 (Beck’s Figure 11). To drive an increase of this magnitude globally requires the release of 233 billion metric tons of C to the atmosphere. The amount is equivalent to more than a third of all the carbon contained in land plants globally.

    Almost all of these measurements are worthless. For details/w. links

  60. #60 Stu
    December 31, 2009

    Neil, Mauna Loa isn’t the only measuring station. See http://co2now.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=77

    They all agree to a much greater tolerance than the chemical method measurements. Also, if the Mauna Loa record was contaminated by being on a volcano (though a fair way from any vents), wouldn’t there be spikes in CO2 at times of eruptions, such as in 1984?

    If you propose that they are both measuring the same processes but come up with dramatically different results (ie, there is no conflict between the earlier, noisy records and later, smooth records), then you have to explain the physical mechanism by which atmospheric CO2 has stopped shooting up and down all the time.

    And, if you’re joking about believing the falsehoods you spout, head over to denialdepot. They need you!

  61. #61 jakerman
    December 31, 2009

    Graeme Bird aka Niel writes:

    >*It is irrelevant. Its totally irrelevant. Did you not read it? It talks around the subject and does not come up with an estimated total based on surveys of actual output.*

    Of course Bird must be critiquting [this paper](http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~tony/watts/downloads/HillierWatts2007GL029874.pdf) the one he cited as “The above study is the relevant study”. And as Bird knows the paper he cited did not even mention CO2.

    Bird goes on:

    >*So the pdf you linked is irrelevant and actually reading it, you get to see just how fraudulent Monbiot, Tony Jones and Lambert are being. Since the pdf gives us an immense range of CO2 sources.*

    Monbiot Jones and and Lambert didn’t cite the paper you (Bird) provided nor that which [Marco provided](http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/2001RG000105.pdf). So we get to see just how fraudulent Bird is being. (As if we needed more examples).

    But one gets the sense that Bird would have made the same bogus critique of what ever source Monbiot et all were citing.

    So what does Birds say about [Gerlash 1991](http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php). Bird says Gerlash is wrong. What is his evidence for that? Bird says “We have an estimate that there are 3 million of these “seamounts” over 100m high, and an estimate of 64, 000 kilometres of underwater rift zones.” But doesn’t show how this makes Gerlash wrong.

    Bird, why does this estimate make Gerlash wrong? Oh and please make reference the [net sources](http://www.eos.ubc.ca/~mjelline/453website/eosc453/E_prints/2001RG000105.pdf) figures.

  62. #62 TrueSceptic
    December 31, 2009

    453 Janet,

    You are trying to reason with GMB. In case you don’t already know it, [this](http://notahedgehog.wordpress.com/2008/12/25/the-christmas-spirit/) will give you insights into the hidden depths of his character and intellect.

  63. #63 jakerman
    December 31, 2009

    Bird write:

    >*Don’t go being lead astray by these alarmist dummies.*

    Perhaps I am, how would I decern if I was? I might I ask you a [legitimate question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2174172) about your bold assertions.

    Your response of gave me further confirmation that you can’t back your claims.

    Just as your (in your Stephen sock puppet) avoidance of [my Beck questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2173114) shows how your talk is cheap, and hence it’s the evidence that sways me.

  64. #64 Devils Advocate
    January 1, 2010

    Sorry to cause trouble again, but as you guys are experts on AGW, can you please help me get to the bottom of this volcanoes business?

    How many submarine volcanoes are included in Kerricks calculations? There seems to be conflicting views on the number, Plimer says none; can anybody find the exact number in Kerricks report?

  65. #65 zoot
    January 1, 2010

    I guess you must be new to this interweb thingy Devils Advocate, because you apparently are unaware of a wonderful tool called Google. And now Microsoft has a competing effort called Bing. Why don’t you try doing some homework?

  66. #66 P. Lewis
    January 1, 2010
  67. #67 Devils Advocate
    January 1, 2010

    Thanks for that advice Zoot, it is amazing what you can find on that “interweb thingy”!

    Gerlach (1991) estimates volcanic CO2 emissions total 55 MtCpa globally and evenly distributed between subaerial and submarine volcanism. 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 was interesting to observe that Kerrick (2001) leaves out some of the more notable volcanoes (eg. Laki, Tambora, Krakatoa, Mauna Loa, Pinatubo, El Chichon, Katmai, Vesuvius, Agung, Toba, etc.). Nevertheless, based on these assumptions Kerrick calculates 2.0-2.5 x 1012 mol of annual CO2 emissions from all subaerial volcanoes and understates the estimate on the assumption that the sample is from the most active 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. My main criticism of Kerrick’s guess is that it putatively covers only 10% of a highly variable phenomenon on land, and with the cursorary dismissal of mid oceanic ridge emissions, ignores all other forms of submarine volcanism altogether. If we take the Smithsonian list of 1500 active subaerial volcanoes worldwide, Kerrick’s 10% is reduced to 1.3%.

    The subsequent finding of Werner & Brantley (2003) is hardly surprising. The Yellowstone volcanic province produces 6-7 x 1012 mol of annual CO2 (72-84 MtCpa), which is about three times more CO2 than the total subaerial volcanic emission of Kerrick (2001) and Gerlach (1991). It just goes to show that consensus is political, not scientific. Need I point out that volcanic systems are diverse and unpredictable and cannot be statistically second-guessed for the same reason that lottery numbers cannot be statistically second-guessed – as the findings of Werner & Brantley so spectacularly demonstrate.

    According to Batiza (1982), Pacific mid-plate seamounts number betwen 22,000 and 55,000 with 2,000 active. 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 an interesting 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.

  68. #68 P. Lewis
    January 1, 2010

    Devils Advocate is cutting and pasting from the Consulting Geologist website (if you hadn’t guessed).

  69. #69 Sim
    January 1, 2010

    Devil quotes one line in all the papers he discussed:

    >*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”.*

    Problem is, I can’t find this quoted line using my search function. Devil did you misquote this line? If so did you misrepresent any of the other figures or description you provided?

  70. #70 P Lewis
    January 1, 2010

    Sim, it’s from the Consulting Geologist website, which you can google for using “Geologist 1011″

  71. #71 Sim
    January 1, 2010

    P. Lewis thanks for that tip, I hadn’t caught that trick. I guess if Devil (living up to first part of his name) is plagiarising then he will not be able to answer [my question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2175053).

    Devil, get a more reliable source to plagiarise next time.

  72. #72 Devils Advocate
    January 1, 2010

    Sim are you looking here?;

    Kerrick, D. M., 2001, “Present and Past Nonanthropogenic CO2 Degassing From the Solid Earth”, Reviews of Geophysics, Vol. 39, pp. 568

    I would be sorry if you can’t find it.

  73. #73 Sim
    January 1, 2010

    P. Lewis, thanks also for [your link](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2175038) to the BGS summary. It helped sorting out more of the charf in the “Geologist 1011″ peice.

  74. #74 Sim
    January 1, 2010

    Devil, yes I was looking their, and I even found what I reckon was the line that was misquoted by the dodgy author that you plagiarised.

    Here’s the passage that you (your source) miss quoted:

    >*Because CO2 fluxes have been measured for only a fraction ( 10%) of the ** >100 active subaerial volcanos**, estimating the total CO2 discharge from volcanos worldwide requires considerable extrapolation.*

    Tell your Counsulting Geologist that when using quote marks it is essential to indicate when you leave words out. And neither is it permissible to add words they did not use.

  75. #75 Bernard J.
    January 1, 2010

    Devils [sic] Advocate has his knickers in a knot over Plimer’s nonsense claim about volcanic CO2, and about what the USGS and the rest of science says in contrast.

    The answer is very simple. Devils [sic] Advocate, if you believe Plimer to have a case, and the rest of science to be incorrect, you can simply demonstrate your point by providing the carbon cycle numbers (id est sources’ and sinks’ emission rates) that you have been able to locate, and thus show where Plimer’s budget is correct and the rest of science’s is not.

    It’s really easy. Two tables, each with two columns – CO2 in, CO2 out – and a line at the bottom of each table adding the totals. And an accounting hint: income and expenditure are not the same as underlying capital…

    Simple. So hop to it.

  76. #76 Marco
    January 1, 2010

    @Devils advocate:
    Please reconsider your sources. They are either willfully deceitful, or incapable of understanding plain scientific language.
    This is the Werner&Bradley paper:
    http://www.essc.psu.edu/~brantley/publications/CO2%20emissions%20from%20Yellowstone.pdf

    The number that your source claims is the annual emission from Yellowstone is actually the number Werner&Bradley cite as that of global volcanic emissions. The contribution of Yellowstone is estimated to be about 5% of that value.

  77. #77 Sim
    January 1, 2010

    Marco,

    I’ve found your linking to primary sources and your cogent assessments of them very helpful, and not just today.

    Thanks again.

  78. #78 Marco
    January 1, 2010

    @Sim:
    You’re welcome. I’ve learned quite rapidly that it is best to read the actual papers (as far as possible), rather than the interpretation of certain people. That also means you should not automatically take my word as truth…

  79. #79 Devils Advocate
    January 5, 2010

    Bernard J @ 456 said

    “The answer is very simple. Devils [sic] Advocate, if you believe Plimer to have a case, and the rest of science to be incorrect, you can simply demonstrate your point by providing the carbon cycle numbers (id est sources’ and sinks’ emission rates) that you have been ABLE TO LOCATE, and thus show where Plimer’s budget is correct and the rest of science’s is not.”

    Bernard, here is one “source” I have been “ABLE TO LOCATE”,that your climate model missed. Now only another 68,000 kilometres of volcanic underwater rift zones left to search to find the other 79.9999% of UNSEEN and UNMONITERED UNDERWATER VOLCANOES not in your climate model.

    It is strange you have the Co-Chief Scientist Bob Embley of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) saying;
    “it will allow a unique opportunity to learn how the earth recycles material when one tectonic plate subsides under another….The discovery of the active deep sea volcano has been a long time coming. NOAA and the National Science Foundation (NSF) have been searching for 25 years ……For the first time scientists witnessed molten lava flowing across the ocean’s bottom and discovered a new type of lava” …. …With 80% of all volcanic activity occurring under the ocean scientists hope to learn a great deal from the discovery”

    Well Bernard, when the scientists from NOAA and their mates at the USGS find their second underwater volcano, they can try another underwater first; measuring its emissions. Then they will have “learn a great deal” more about volcanic activity occurring under the ocean than they know now; which by Bob Embley’s own words is NOTHING. When they do Bernard, get back to me with some real figures, not some bogus made up ones.

  80. #80 zoot
    January 5, 2010

    D A @445:

    How many submarine volcanoes are included in Kerricks calculations? There seems to be conflicting views on the number, Plimer says none; can anybody find the exact number in Kerricks report?

    D A @448:

    Kerrick (2001) takes a grand total of 19 subaerial volcanoes

    You see Devil (may I call you Devil?), all on your own you were able to establish that Plimer is a liar.

  81. #81 Lee
    January 5, 2010

    @DA, 460:

    Dude. What do you think happens to CO2 emissions from undersea volcanoes? Where does it go? What detectable impact does it have on that? How might one go about monitoring and detecting CHANGES OVER TIME in the emissions of undersea volcanoes? And what in the F makes you think those data aren’t available?

  82. #82 Marco
    January 5, 2010

    @zoot:
    You may want to correct yourself. Submarine does not equal subaerial.

    However, Plimer (also?) claimed Gerlich did not take submarine volcanoes into account. And that is manifestly false.

  83. #83 luminous beauty
    January 5, 2010

    >_Well Bernard, when the scientists from NOAA and their mates at the USGS find their second underwater volcano, they can try another underwater first; measuring its emissions. Then they will have “learn a great deal” more about volcanic activity occurring under the ocean than they know now; which by Bob Embley’s own words is NOTHING. When they do Bernard, get back to me with some real figures, not some bogus made up ones._

    Well, DA, You can continue to demonstrate your Dunning-Kruger grasp of submarine volcanology derived from specious news reports, or you can look at the scientific literature.

    NOTHING(?)

    [NW Rota-1](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7092/full/nature04762.html)

    [NW Eifuku](http://www.oar.noaa.gov/research/papers07/venting.html) and [also](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AGUFM.V43F..08L)

    [Fifty submarine volcanoes](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GC002141.shtml) of the Mariana Arc.
    >Using the new Mariana data and recent data from the Tonga-Kermadec arc, we estimate that all intraoceanic arcs combined may contribute hydrothermal emissions [equal to ~10% of that from the global mid-ocean ridge.](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JGRB..11308S09B)

    From [1995](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5Y-3XY2PDH-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1155329549&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4799c25c6d1e7a4eb4b19bf62625bcc9)

    [And so on.](http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/home.html)

  84. #84 guthrie
    January 5, 2010

    Devils advocate – how do you account for the changes in oxygen isotope ratios due to the combustion of fossil fuels, which match near enough with that expected for the production of the CO2 we are emitting? Perhaps you can also explain how the underwater volcanos manage to control themselves so that their emissions match the cycle of the seasons?

  85. #85 zoot
    January 5, 2010

    @Marco: Oops, better make sure my brain is engaged before commenting in future. Thanks.
    @Devils Advocate: My mistake, I’m wrong at 461. Please ignore it.

  86. #86 Bernard J.
    January 5, 2010

    [Devils [sic] Advocate](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2183457).

    So you found a reference to an undersea volcano. What makes you think that its emissions are not accounted for in the modellings of submarine volcanic emissions? Ans what makes you think that it is my climate model?!

    I note that you have not actually provided the carbon budget that was [requested of you](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2175081), so I can only assume that even a simple task such as this was beyond your capabilities. This does not come as a surprise, as none of your statements on carbon emissions and AGW actually demonstrate any basic grasp of science.

    I note too that your claim to be ‘simply’ a “devil’s advocate” (note the apostrophe) reflects no grounding in demonstrable action: certainly so with respect to your last post. Rather, you are pushing the ideological barrow of the Denialati, and I’m sure that this comes as no surprise to those who have been reading your efforts here.

  87. #87 Devils Advocate
    January 5, 2010

    Thanks Luminous, from your link @ 464;
    “Most observations and sampling of submarine eruptions have been indirect, made from surface vessels or made after the fact”

    It has been clearly established that up until recently neither NOAA nor anybody else (USGS etc) has had the opportunity to count, see or monitor underwater volcanos up close (see link post 460). It is agreed there is now 1 which we have a video record of.

    We know there is another 68,000 kilometres of unexplored volcanic underwater rift zones yet to be surveyed. Pilmers assessment that these unexplored zones could yield thousands of volcanoes is quite plausible, especially in the absence of scientific observations to disprove his assertion.

    Re post@464;

    “how do you account for the changes in oxygen isotope ratios due to the combustion of fossil fuels, which match near enough with that expected for the production of the CO2 we are emitting”

    The changes in oxygen isotope ratios due to the combustion of fossil fuels, also match near enough with that expected for the production of the CO2 from in situ fossil fuels that are burnt in volcanic processes.

    Re Bernard @ 467; When you have found someone who has gone out into the field and counted the actual number of submarine volcanoes and then actually measured their emissions get back to me. Then I will in a position to provide you with a “carbon budget” that includes that data.

    Bernard, what seems ideological, is asserting intimate knowledge of submarine volcanoes sight unseen, and then asserting that ideological knowledge as science.

  88. #88 zoot
    January 5, 2010

    … what seems ideological, is asserting intimate knowledge of submarine volcanoes sight unseen, and then asserting that ideological knowledge as science.

    Where does Plimer’s “intimate knowledge of submarine volcanoes” come from?

    This of course presupposes that you are here to argue Plimer is not a fraud.

  89. #89 Devils Advocate
    January 6, 2010

    Pilmer doesn’t say he has any intimate knowledge of submarine volcanoes, its Monidiot that does;

    “When confronted with the fact that the USGS says (backed with scientific papers)”

    Zoot, ‘that is’ “backed with” ideological “scientific” toilet “paper” as the submarine volcanoes are site unseen.

  90. #90 Paul H
    January 6, 2010

    DA,

    Do you suppose that there’s a greater number of undersea volcanoes in the Northern Hemisphere?

  91. #91 Bernard J.
    January 6, 2010

    In addition to Paul H’s observation, 1) does Devils [sic] Advocate believe that undersea volcanoes have chimneys that pipe their emissions to the surface layers, and 2) does he believe that they remove oxygen from the atmosphere in proportion to the increase in carbon in the atmosphere?

    Oo, and 3) did these submarine volcanoes start emitting at the same time as the industrial revolution? And oo again, 4) where is the anthropogenically emitted CO2 actually going?

    And oo again again, 5) has DevAd not heard of statistical extrapolation, and oo again again again, 6) if the USGS can’t quantify undersea volcanoes, how is it that Plimer can be certain that there are 68 000 km of vlocanoes under the sea – whatever that might mean, rings of fire notwithstanding?

  92. #92 Devils Advocate
    January 6, 2010

    “has DevAd not heard of statistical extrapolation”

    Is that making up figures when you do not believe the data or is it what you make hockey sticks out of?

  93. #93 guthrie
    January 6, 2010

    Thats got to be the funniest reply yet – that the O2 isotope changes come from fossil fuels burnt by volcanos. Some actual evidence would be nice, or do you think that volcanos work from coal seems?

    As for hockey sticks, you clearly don’t know what you are talking about, since statistical extrapolation is not needed to produce a hockey stick. Just measurement and proxies for the last 600 or 1000 years.

  94. #94 zoot
    January 6, 2010

    D A it would be nice if you could get the good professor’s name right.

  95. #95 Bernard J.
    January 6, 2010

    Devils [sic] Advocate.

    I note that you chose to reply (in an irrelevant and fact-free fashion) to the one rhetorical question in [my list](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php#comment-2185848) of questions, and that you left the others untouched.

    What wrong – are you afraid to actually use some parsimonious science? Or is it that you simply do not know the real answers?

    Or perhaps you actually do know the truth, but as it stubbornly refuses to gel with your ideology, you take the ostrich option and hope that no-one notices…

    Whatever the reality, one thing is for sure – you are not a genuine seeker of objective scientific fact.

  96. #96 Paul H
    January 6, 2010

    Yeah, volcanoes burning fossil fuels, that sure gave me a chuckle too. Amazing that DA is quick to propose something this ridiculous yet can’t face up to the implications of Bernard’s 1-6. So, DA, what observables would support your volcanoes/fossil fuel hypothesis? What theoretical constraints are there for this hypothesis? For instance, where is the oxygen going to come from to get efficient combustion of the fossil fuels inside volcanoes or in the deep ocean? How is that combustion going to occur in, umm, the ocean? Are you going to tell us that molecular oxygen is emitted in large quantities from volcanoes, or perhaps the syn gas and water shift gas reactions are happening in the deep ocean?

  97. #97 luminous beauty
    January 6, 2010

    DA,

    You quote from The nature paper on NW Rota-1:

    >“Most observations and sampling of submarine eruptions have been indirect, made from surface vessels or made after the fact”

    Neglecting the following passage:

    >We describe here __direct observations__ and sampling of an eruption at a submarine arc volcano named NW Rota-1, located 60 km northwest of the island of Rota (Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands).

    You also ignore the direct observations of arc volcanoes described in the other links.

    Such a selective quotation in an academic setting is tantamount to scientific fraud, and would result in one losing one’s job and possibly being subject to criminal prosecution.

    Go away, liar.

  98. #98 luminous beauty
    January 6, 2010

    DA,

    Hit “send query” at the bottom of [this](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JGRB..11308S09B) page for more research papers you can pretend don’t exist. When you’ve finished with those, hit “next set of references” at the bottom of that page, and so on.

    Get back to us when you’re done.

  99. #99 dhogaza
    January 6, 2010

    Thats got to be the funniest reply yet – that the O2 isotope changes come from fossil fuels burnt by volcanos. Some actual evidence would be nice, or do you think that volcanos work from coal seems?

    DA’s gotta be pulling a Poe on our collective ass …

  100. #100 guthrie
    January 6, 2010

    It would fit with the actions, certainly.