EXXON Contradicts its Own Scientists

[Guest]

So EA, what you're saying is that all dumping of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't equal in long-term CO2 concentration? In other words, a blast of CO2 from a volcano five times what man makes in a year, wouldn't necessarily leave five times the CO2 in the atmosphere?

That is the obvious implication to me. Huge volcanic events like that are rare and transitory events, and the excess CO2 they leave in the air would, within relatively short time, begins to dissipate as it is absorbed by the oceans and chemically reacts with exposed rocks and the biosphere, as would the excess CO2 we emit, if we stopped emitting it a rate that upsets the natural balance of natural CO2 emission and absorption.

[_Gunnar]

So EA, what you're saying is that all dumping of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't equal in long-term CO2 concentration? In other words, a blast of CO2 from a volcano five times what man makes in a year, wouldn't necessarily leave five times the CO2 in the atmosphere?

Tobin's CO2 numbers were wildly inaccurate. Who knows what denialist website he got those from. I tried to trace his claim and couldn't even find a single source. My best guess is he is either working off an obscure blog or he himself confused total ejecta with CO2 numbers. Or he's making it up for kicks. Estimates on total volcanic emissions into the atmosphere on average is around .15 gt of carbon / year according to the literature I saw. Human activity is currently around 7 for comparison. Tobin's Kraktatoa claim is way off that. His number represents something like a 1/5th the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 at the time. The only estimate I could find on Krakatoa was hilariously smaller in than this. I would encourage Tobin to reveal his source for his claim.

Krakatoa didn't appreciably change atmospheric CO2 levels in the ice-core data.

It's possible for vulcanism to move the needle on CO2 levels in drastic ways. That has happened in the history of Earth to catastrophic outcome, in fact. It's just that nothing like what we've seen has done that and the current CO2 increase is a steady incline caused by human emissions.

I find it hilarious that he continues to accuse us of not providing credible sources for what we say, while making no effort on his part to fact check his claims, and even makes up figures out of the air that he does not even attempt to give sources for. As has already been noted, reasoned, civil and respectful discussion is probably the last thing he on his mind.

[_Gunnar]

deleted duplicate post

[_Tobin]

Tobin,

From what I gather, supervolcanos don't erupt often enough to compete with man-made CO2 even if a single eruption (of a small one) produces more CO2 than a couple of years of human activity. The consensus seems to be that man-made CO2 produces about 100 times what volcanoes do over time, including what you refer to as supervolcanoes. If Yellow Stone erupted then sure, we'd be toast, but there is no good reason to believe any supervolcano will erupt in the near future to dwarf all man-made CO2.

My point was given what a super-eruption can do to the world's climate, I really could care less what man is doing. Most knowledgeable climatologists recognize that rising CO2 is a lagging indicator of temperature rise. And current levels of CO2 are actually rather low for the Earth. During the Jurassaic period in which there was a large biomass, temperatures were likely 15 degrees C higher and CO2 concentrations were between 1500-2500 ppm CO2. So current levels or any levels humans will ever achieve since we'll exhaust our oil supplies long before hitting it, is just no big deal.

[_Tobin]

Tobin's Krakatoa numbers were inaccurate. I'm surprised no one called him on it.

Really? Where is your citation?

[Guest]

I find it hilarious that he continues to accuse us of not providing credible sources for what we say, while making no effort on his part to fact check his claims, and even makes up figures out of the air that he does not even attempt to give sources for. As has already been noted, reasoned, civil and respectful discussion is probably the last thing he on his mind.

Weren't you just advocating that nobody respond to me? If you dispute my claims, where are your facts? Oh right, you have none.

[_Res Ipsa]

Truly massive releases of CO2, such of that of the Deccan Traps, caused or contributed to several mass extinctions. But Krakatoa was insignificant when compared with those eruptions.

[_Res Ipsa]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lag ... rature.htm

[_The CCC]

Tobin,

From what I gather, supervolcanos don't erupt often enough to compete with man-made CO2 even if a single eruption (of a small one) produces more CO2 than a couple of years of human activity. The consensus seems to be that man-made CO2 produces about 100 times what volcanoes do over time, including what you refer to as supervolcanoes. If Yellow Stone erupted then sure, we'd be toast, but there is no good reason to believe any supervolcano will erupt in the near future to dwarf all man-made CO2.

My point was given what a super-eruption can do to the world's climate, I really could care less what man is doing. Most knowledgeable climatologists recognize that rising CO2 is a lagging indicator of temperature rise. And current levels of CO2 are actually rather low for the Earth. During the Jurassaic period in which there was a large biomass, temperatures were likely 15 degrees C higher and CO2 concentrations were between 1500-2500 ppm CO2. So current levels or any levels humans will ever achieve since we'll exhaust our oil supplies long before hitting it, is just no big deal.

Whether you care or not is irrelevant.
SEE http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lag ... rature.htm

The earths average temperature right now is about 61 degrees F. adding 15 degrees C. is about 59 degrees added F. making earth's average temperature in the neighborhood 120 degrees F. The planet will still be here but life as we know it would difficult. We are already locked into over a 2 degree C. temperature rise with its attendant enviro-socio-political-military problems. Why do you want to add more problems for your children to solve?

[_Tobin]

My point was given what a super-eruption can do to the world's climate, I really could care less what man is doing. Most knowledgeable climatologists recognize that rising CO2 is a lagging indicator of temperature rise. And current levels of CO2 are actually rather low for the Earth. During the Jurassaic period in which there was a large biomass, temperatures were likely 15 degrees C higher and CO2 concentrations were between 1500-2500 ppm CO2. So current levels or any levels humans will ever achieve since we'll exhaust our oil supplies long before hitting it, is just no big deal.

Whether you care or not is irrelevant.
SEE http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lag ... rature.htm

The earths average temperature right now is about 61 degrees F. adding 15 degrees C. is about 59 degrees added F. making earth's average temperature in the neighborhood 120 degrees F. The planet will still be here but life as we know it would difficult. We are already locked into over a 2 degree C. temperature rise with its attendant enviro-socio-political-military problems. Why do you want to add more problems for your children to solve?

First of all, your math is terrible. You can't just take degrees in C convert them into Fahrenheit, add them together, and get the right result. Right now, let's say the earth's average temperature is around 10-12C (making this determination is kind of silly). If you add 15C you get 25-27C. That is 77-80F. As I said, no big deal.

Your next assertion is life will be difficult is also false. It won't become more difficult and may become better. The Jurassic period had plenty of life. In fact, living conditions on the planet may improve substantially since large areas, like in the frozen northern interior of Asia, would become livable.