Wednesday, 17 August 2011

Underground volcanoes, not humans, are causing rising CO2

Our friends at WUWT recently had a post about underwater volcanoes. In this post, I would like to discuss another kind of volcanoes that have been sadly (or deliberately) overlooked in the climate debate: underground volcanoes.
Underground volcano (courtesy USA Today

We know very little about what can be found deep in the Earth's crust. NASA is sending rockets to penetrate Uranus, but very little is done to probe the depths of the bowels of our own home planet, mother Earth. This is a sad state of affairs. Hence, we don't know how many underground volcanoes there are. There might be billions, hidden from our eyes by miles of Earth's crust. There might be huge underground volcanoes, the size of Alaska, and we have no idea about them. And they are all emitting carbon dioxide on a scale that dwarfs our puny human emissions. The so-called "climate scientists" simply haven't taken this into account in their "models" of the so-called "carbon cycle". The IPCC has, not surprisingly, been silent about the topic. Image the arrogance of climate modelers who assume that they know all the major natural processes. Let alone their impact. Just tweak the right parameters and viola the model fits the data, even though it is incomplete. “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”
Temperature and CO2 the last centuries according to E. Beck
The graph above shows how carbon dioxide has fluctuated the last centuries. It obviously has no relation to human activities. The only explanation is underground volcanoes: we can notice that they are both emitting CO2 and causing warming. Of course, the eruption of a single Alaska-sized underground volcano under the Arctic sea would be sufficient to explain the melting of the Artic sea ice (which is now by the way recovering). And yet, we would never be able to detect that volcano. We should learn to be humble about how little we really know about Earth and its climate, and the secrets it hides in its interior.
Mole drill for exploring Earth's interior
Indeed, until we know what secrets lie below Earths surface, before we have sent expeditions into the depths of the planet, it would be futile and a pointless waste to try to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere by burning less fossil fuels. Futile! Pointless!


27 comments:

  1. Below the crust is also a suitable habitat for fire breathing dragons which could account for these variations in CO2. These creatures migrated to the surface in Medieval times producing the associated warm period, but were forced back underground during the little ice age.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Endorphin Monkey17 August 2011 14:49

    All of this lines up perfectly with the Expanding Earth Theory, promoted by Neal Adams, who must know what he's talking about, as he is a comic book artist and not a scientist. As the earth expands, the continents spread out, the Earth's crust thins out and internal planetary heat is released into the atmosphere in ever increasing quantities, and then off into space, to warm the undersides of UFOs. The thinning of the earth's crust creates the cracks that permits the underground volcanoes to form and the internal reservoirs of CO2 to be released.

    But where does the extra mass come from? It's simple! String theory, quantum mechanics, nuclear fusion, punctuated hypogenesistic baryotrophy, and the fact that some of the released CO2 passes from a solid to a liquid to a gas, thus creating bubbles in the newly created undergound volcanic rox. The world is therefore becoming less dense, unlike left-wing scientists (ha ha), and this is causing the planet to shift its orbit away from the sun, thus reducing tempuratures and bringing on the next Ice Age.

    And I say BRING IT ON! In the future, equatorial walruses will be just as nootrishuss as manatees and chupacabras are today!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let's not forget about the underground ice sheets that have been expanding to compensate for the ice loss aboveground. Must have, otherwise the earth wouldn't conserve mass, which would be a violation of some law (not sure which one, I'm not a lawyer).

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's long been apparent that those East Coast preverts at NASA care far more about penetrating Uranus than doing good science. Louis Armstrong must be spinning in his grave.

    When Hansen or Schmidt or any of them other preverts there take a biodegradable leaf out of greatest living space scientist Roy Spencers tree. When they can openly state their fundamentalist duty is to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government, that's when they might be taken seriously.

    I must admit I know nothing about underground volcanoes, but I'm sure you're right Baron.
    Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In my next pear reviewed paper from the Fartland Instityoot I show that these carbon dioxide emitting undersea volcanoes can be stopped by relieving the oil pressure above them. Not only are Exxon and Shell providing our planet with well needed hydrocarbon energy, they're lowering the pressure on these nasty submarine polluters!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Baron - your magnificent intellect runs rings around those grant chasing climate scientists. In less than 500 words you have easily demolished a century and a half of foolishness and misperceptions!

    ReplyDelete
  7. No no no, it's the sun! And I quote: "There is weak evidence for a quasi-periodic variation in the sunspot cycle amplitudes with a period of about 90 years ("Gleisberg cycle"). These characteristics indicate that the next solar cycle should have a maximum smoothed sunspot number of about 145±30 in 2010 while the following cycle should have a maximum of about 70±30 in 2023", wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_variation&diff=525878399&oldid=523569054 The maximum was 2010 and we're going toward an ice age.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Another anonymous here. I know, sun hasn't changed at all, so it can't be responsible for the extra carbon even though it produces carbon via fusion. So it's not the sun! I want to propose a theory on the so called sea level rise. It's not sea level that is rising. It's the continents going down. The IPCC has drilled thousands of earthen and ice cores during their studies. What are they drilling for??? According to my theory, they're somehow locating the bacterial colonies producing helium, that keeps thecontinents afloat. When they reach the large cavities of these mouldy slimes, the helium escapes. Then the IPCC changes all the measurements all over the world by their supercomputers to hide the fact. Helium escapes to space reacting with ozone He+O3 -> HeO+O2. Ozone layer gets smaller and more oxygen from troposphere moves to stratosphere to fill the ozone hole. This leaves more room to CO2 so it's not wonder there's more of it. Maybe it evaporates from the glaciers. Anyway, CO2 is natural for it is needed to run the plants.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymos #3 here, what I've got to say is rather unbelievable. There is a TRANSPARENT gas that catches PARTICLES OF HEAT. It's in the WIND, and we BREATH this INVISIBLE gas out MORE THAN in! Now, this unseen product of breathing will also RELEASE the particles of heat AGAINST the THERMAL GRADIENT. These RE-EMITTED, FOREVER UNCHANGING, INVISIBLE PARTICLES OF HEAT, GOING TOWARDS WARMER TEMPERATURES, FROM AN UNSEEN GAS THAT WE BREATH OUT MORE THAN IN THEN HIT THE SENSORS AND MAKE AN IMPRESSION THAT THERE IS MORE WARMTH THAN WITHOUT THEM!!! So, it's the sensors fault! Lose the sensors nd there's NO PROBLEM!

    ReplyDelete
  10. there seems to be plenty anonyms here. the real reason for so called climate change is that the mind, where it's born by God's intervention, creates a bubble around it self. Thus we cannot know how the universe really works like it's described in Matrix. All the people who claim there is a greenhouse effect, are in the subsystem that twists their words. They are actually saying there is not a greenhouse effect. I blame agent Smith subroutines for this. The knowledge about of this has been received by the Neo-system in the core that looks surpringly much like a pimped Mack truck.

    ReplyDelete
  11. No no no no. It's the methane! Methane gets oxidized and presto! you have CO2! It can't be oil or coal since they are solids, and not gases! No way an oil molecule can combine with an oxygen molecule to produce CO2! Instead CH4 + O2 is CO2 + 2 H2, which escapes.

    captcha says Shub-Niggurath.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There's so much crap by the anonymouses here. I'd tell you it's all about TCR, but I'm just transiently visiting here.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The gleissberg cycle is crap, rather, it is a much shorter cycle. If we want to avoid the coming ice age, we need to modulate the music of the weather. This can be done by setting the middle A to 360Hz. This will induce slower but wider waves in the air alinging the long CO2 molecules flatly in the air so they can actually grab the upgoing energy from the cities. Or, if we want to cool the planet we should increase the middle A to 400Hz so the CO2 would be vertical letting the energy pass. I'm not trying to explain why there might be more of it now, but point out that it's all in the music of the air and easily corrected anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  14. No, it's teh internet. distributed computing heat source. cool your fan exhaust.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'll say... http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2013/03/04/sci-deep-carbon.html

    Betcha it's these guys who manage the underground volcanos. So it's not us. And anyway water vapor is more potent, i betcha also some microbes manage the oceans emmissions of water vapor too.

    ReplyDelete
  16. it's the russian meteor that dunnit, says me.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm a phenomelologist and I'm pretty certain that the cause of climate change is the opposite of 'us'. It's 'you'. Why did the lizard-people decide to omit the singular 2nd personal pronoun from english is anybody's guess.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Phenomelologist: you may be on to something! there's no http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_and_exclusive_we#Second-person_clusivity anywhere!

    ReplyDelete
  19. oh no you last two cant be serious with that hah lack of words can cause GW if people hadnt learnt to speak there would not be organised systems like the grand scientist conspiracy that says things can be measured with numbers god is the measure of all things and no scientist has proved they have a god measuring things for them and theres just one to 399 gods depending on the belief

    ReplyDelete
  20. care to list those 399?? me, I'm an agnostic, and I'm pretty confident in claiming that we have no way of knowing there's a god or not, just like GW, we can't know if the numbers are correct, since one can be divided though the inconclusive notion of god might be claimed as a definite statement. eat your curry and be happy.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I knew there would be some agnostic with their divisible quarks and irrational numbers present! I'd rather trust an atheist, they at least have their so called planck units, though they've too fallen into irredeemable complications of the god called Chaos and Multiplicity and use the Hartree-Cluster-Fock method in their vain hopes. Still they claim they do not believe in gods. Don't you know Navier-Stokes they use in models is just a way to get more computer resources for their esoteric pursuits, which do not lead to anything sensible, the hypocrites they are. Youre dime a dozen mock up of a person. You disgust me, I'm off.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Off Topic Comment from self-appointed moderator: The comments made in recent times prove that the paradoxical way of thinking has been crystallized in an -ism, in which the top of the ability of problem-solving is considered.

    The moderator still allows non-religious and religious comments or in agnostics case, the 'I don't know and cannot know'-comments, but please keep the thread on topic. (humans, not, rising CO2, or challenging the underground volcano explanation) off topic comments will be saved, and archived in due time.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The agnostic mock-up of a person here. I kind of like the music of the air explanation, It's well known that the object of the study may be changed by the observation. Thus not-observing may keep the object the same. Instead, if we just do whatever we do, the climate should stay the same. I think it's commonly agreed the climate is the average weather over 30 years. AFAIK, there's no observational system that can observe 30-years of weather in planck time increments anywhere, ergo, climate is unchanging. Of course this only applies if planck time is the smallest increment of time. I might be able to live with that. Would this be a reasonable 'common ground', though I find it hard to convert the numerical system so that 399 = ∞ ?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hello, those landfalling smaller than largest storms are likely causing some effect to the electricity systems round the world and not just Philippines. The coal plants can't shut up quickly so they add to the CO2 in the atmosphere in these cases. ACE is currently down, but as these category 5 storms are so small, they increase it more. If each storm would be larger than previous, CO2 would go down, but this can't happen because of the stochastic nature of Midgård. Of course, we could ask Njord to blow more, but this might upset his wife. Also there could be some other effects like Freya might get angry with Serkland and prevent good harvests of wine, and we would be all serious for a while. not funny. M.M.

    ReplyDelete
  25. G'day from Australia, I visited north pole just recently and it was cold there. Now back on vacation in US midwest and it's cold in here too. Last year I went to Northern Europe to get some warmth but it was freezing also there. The same happened with Yakutsk in February 2010. Next summer I'll go south and it better be warm in Antarctica, I've had enough of this cold.

    ReplyDelete
  26. hey hey, there's evidence that changing the course of ocean currents will prevent the rising of the CO2. All we have to do is to build a wall around arctic and antarctica at 61 degrees N and S. This turns the climate there to under -78 and the CO2 will saturate from the air. This is then easily airlifted to space using the energy from the particle accelerators on the walls.

    ReplyDelete

Welcome to comment on my blog, dear reader.