Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for some 36,300 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2008 [Le Quéré et al., 2009], release at least a hundred times more CO2 annually than all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2010).

The half dozen or so published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 132 million (minimum) to 378 million (maximum) metric tons per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998; Kerrick, 2001). If estimate medians and author-preferred estimates of these studies are used to lessen the influence of outlier estimates, the range is restricted to about 150-270 million metric tons of CO2 per year. The current anthropogenic CO2 emission rate of some 36,300-million metric tons of CO2 per year is about 100 to 300 times larger than these estimated ranges for global volcanic CO2 emissions.

In recent times, about 50-60 volcanoes are normally active on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 3.1 million metric tons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,700 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require the addition of over 100 mid-oceanic ridge systems to the sea floor.

Global volcanic CO2 emission estimates are uncertain, but there is little doubt that the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate is more than a hundred times greater than the global volcanic CO2 emission rate.

Apart from that we have already impacted on the health of the planet.

All the carbon stored away over huge periods of time gets pumped back out into the atmosphere in a day and the organisms needed to store the carbon are being removed.

I was under the impression that volcanic emmissions were part of a cycle whereby the materials that create greenhouse gases are removed.

As I understand it, there is another part of the cycle whereby the plate tectonics take carbonifeous rock down into the mantle.
That is what I was refering to not just the smokey stuff.

How is it only a "minor matter"?

Again, Plimer has not subjected his opinions to peer review AFAIK. He has used erroneous data to support his ideas, so to jump up and down on the grave of environmentalism is a tad premature.

Australia is considering awarding carbon credits for killing feral camels as a way to tackle climate change.

The suggestion is included in the 'Carbon Farming Initiative', a consultation paper by the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

Adelaide-based Northwest Carbon, a commercial company, proposed culling some 1.2m wild camels that roam the Outback, the legacy of herds introduced to help early settlers in the 19th century.

Considered a pest due to the damage they do to vegetation, a camel produces, on average, a methane equivalent to one tonne of carbon dioxide a year.

That makes them collectively one of Australia's major emitters of greenhouse gases.

In its plan, Northwest said it would shoot them from helicopters or muster them and send them to an abattoir for either human or pet consumption.

'We're a nation of innovators and we find innovative solutions to our challenges - this is just a classic example,' Northwest Carbon managing director Tim Moore told Australian Associated Press.

The idea was among those accepted for discussion by the government, which is seeking to 'provide new economic opportunities for farmers, forest growers and landholders' if they come up with ways to cut emissions, according to the document.

Heavily reliant on coal-fired power and mining exports, Australia is one of the world's worst per capita polluters and the government is looking at ways to clean up its act.

Legislation for the Carbon Farming Initiative is set to go before parliament next week.

Humans are careless, we have tried to balance out our actions in the past and most of those didn't end up very well. Life is very delicate and we can't predict the effects of our actions, interferring is bad.

Unfortunately I think MGS is right. We have grown so large that we require resources that earth can't provide.

The larger we grow the faster our population increases.

We have reached the point where our society isn't sustainable.

Personally I just hope something happens before we destroy everything around us. While it's good that people (well some of them) try to help, their ideas are on a tiny scale. Short of changing our entire lives to stop using energy (no electricity, no cars ect..) we aren't going to stop it.

We've also tried to fly by attaching tiny flapping wings to bicycles. Knowledge and engineering march on.

We haven't. The midwestern plains could support the entire world's population several times over were they fully utilized, and there are roughly equivalent, if slightly smaller, plains in both Europe and India. To say nothing of advances in agriculture that could make hydro/aeroponic towers a viable replacement to arable land.

This is also false. Population growth has slowed to a halt in developed nations.

That would mean the destruction of all that is human, for the sake of a world that doesn't care or matter, being an abstract concept rooted in romantic eco-fantasy and all.

We've also tried to fly by attaching tiny flapping wings to bicycles. Knowledge and engineering march on.

Even recently our attempts to help are going wrong. Nature is too complex a web for us to be able to predict what the effects of us interferring are.

Space is not the only problem. We need energy, food, living space, ect.. Not all of these can be put everywhere. We are already having problems with food and fuel competing for land.

This is also false. Population growth has slowed to a halt in developed nations.

No it's called exponential growth. While we continue to have more than 2 children per family (which as a species we are) it will continue growing and increasing in speed.

That would mean the destruction of all that is human, for the sake of a world that doesn't care or matter, being an abstract concept rooted in romantic eco-fantasy and all.

I think you mean a world you don't think is important for what you think is human. It's possible to exist without harming the planet- we have been doing it for thousands of years.

I don't think it will happen but we could do it. The idea that the world is unimportant is entirely dependant on your view point. I personaly don't think we are all that special and am disappointed in people who think the whole world is to be used by humans. What matters depends on your viewpoint and your values aren't the only ones whose are important.

Toastedandy wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:As a quick note biology =/= paleontology frazz, it is perfectly reasonable for a biologist to know bugger all about extinct species.

Work Harder, not Smarter!

Ha your posts are always fun

There are also more problems with renewables than with nonrenewables. There is a practical thermodynamic limit on the amount of solar/wind energy that can be harvested. This sets a maximum limit on technological expansion. Nonrenewables allow us to push beyond this thermodynamic limit by providing a store of extractable useable energy.

biccat wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

Matrim wrote:Nuclear fusion.

Currently produces a net loss of energy in all of our reactors.

We do have means of producing a net energy gain using nuclear fusion.

It's just not very safe.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:No, there's not. It would be closer to truth were we talking about some conceivable pseudo-perpetual-motion machine or cycle, but we're talking about "renewable" things in a very short frame of reference: the sun isn't "renewable", but from any currently relevant frame of reference it might as well be, since it won't stop dumping vast amounts of energy onto us for billions of years.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

biccat wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

Matrim wrote:Nuclear fusion.

Currently produces a net loss of energy in all of our reactors.

We do have means of producing a net energy gain using nuclear fusion.

It's just not very safe.

The issue is actually it's too safe, in that it's exceedingly difficult and expensive to create the conditions in which the reactions occur, and that they tend to stop very quickly. We are getting closer to it, though. Maybe in a few decades we'll have the first working prototypes.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:No, there's not. It would be closer to truth were we talking about some conceivable pseudo-perpetual-motion machine or cycle, but we're talking about "renewable" things in a very short frame of reference: the sun isn't "renewable", but from any currently relevant frame of reference it might as well be, since it won't stop dumping vast amounts of energy onto us for billions of years.

The limit is the amount of solar energy we can expect to harvest for a given time period. For example, if we were to put solar energy cells on every square inch of roof space in the United States, we would only satisfy about 80% of our current annual energy usage.

There is an upper limit on how much solar energy impacts the earth annually. The upper limit on how much power we can produce in a day is also theoretically limited, but would be a lot higher.

Matrim wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

Matrim wrote:Nuclear fusion.

Currently produces a net loss of energy in all of our reactors.

i think you are confusing fusion with fission

ChrisWWII wrote:

Matrim wrote:That was my whole point about 'nuclear fusion'

the amount of energy it creates is astonishing compared to nuclear fission.

i think corpses are fun had them confused, not everyone who ever mentioned nuclear ever.

The problem is corpses was right. Nuclear fusion makes a lot of energy, but it needs even MORE energy than it produces to get the reaction started, and keep it stable.

ChrisWWII wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

So your counting on people to always be responsible users of large ordnance.

No, I'm counting on military commanders to put their ordnance into something where its USEFUL.

ChrisWWII wrote:
I'd rather drop bunker busters on hangars, factories, and other things that could actually affect only my enemy. If I want to cut the enemy's power supply, I'll just graphite bomb his power lines.

This just speaks of commanders of course. Not terrorists yet. I don't think you will have any objection to the theory that Al Quaeda and some other groups would have no problem with uncapping a reactor and spreading crap everywhere, if they could. After all they attacked no hangers or factories on 9/11 or 7/7.