Apparently volcanoes make CO2 when convenient. Most of the time the claim is that volcanoes produce much less CO2 than humans. But when convenient for the global warming argument, the claim is that volcanoes produce huge amounts of CO2.
BTW – over 100,000 years, vegetation and the oceans produce 20 million gigatons of CO2. That is 4,000 times more than what the author is claiming for the volcanoes. He must have placed very accurate sensors around the planet back during the Paleocene to be able to measure to such precision.
Please sack those scientists.
Volcanoes are producing a lot less CO2 than humans. But in other geologic times, volcanoes produced a lot of CO2. Earth’s geologic history is rich and varied.
So there’s nothing “convenient” about it. It’s just a fact. Volcanic activity changes, which you must surely know–didn’t you say you’re a geologist?
That’s only half the story. The illustration you’re apparently using for this also shows that the oceans and vegetation sink more CO2 than they absorb. Unlike volcanoes.
What it shows is that there is absolutely no way that he could measure volcanic CO2 to that level of precision.
As usual, the point of the article flew right over your head.
I have to wonder about ChrisD’s motivation for posting comments here.
After you dig a deep enough hole, reality seems to float along nicely without you. Reality has a tendency to collapse the walls of holes dug in sand based on faulty research.
Less that 1% of current volcanic / geothermal activity is being monitored as over 90% is in the oceans.
Steve, are you disputing that volcanoes were producing a lot more CO2 back then than they are now? Isn’t that the crux of the issue? If that’s true, doesn’t the rest of this post sort of go away?
Why would volcanoes have produced more CO2 55 million years ago than they do now? That is one percent of Earth’s history.
How could he possibly have measured a change from 55 million years ago which is less than one tenth of one percent of the background emissions of CO2 from oceans and vegetation?
The whole precept is ludicrous.
You are correct that this was not a megavolcano-type event. That was my error (I misread the time), and I apologize for the geologist crack.
However, this post is still incorrect, partly because at least one part of the Telegraph story is somewhat misleading in terms of what Zachos actually said. I expect to post more on this after I confirm some details.
In the meantime, one note: 100,000 years is the hypothesized recovery time from a release of this magnitude, not the duration of the event that released the carbon. The duration of the event itself was considerably less. Therefore the number you show for natural releases (20 million Gt) is not accurate–the real number is quite a bit smaller.
This is the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM for short). One theory is that the Indian subcontinent was moving under the carbon rich crust of the Indian Ocean and finally was ramming into Asia, incidentally producing the Himalayas. This ocean crust contained the organic residue of rivers flowing into the Indian Ocean from Asia over millions of years. One way that CO2 gets fed back into the atmosphere naturally was (is) through continental drift. The increased levels of CO2 are from empirical measures. It is the cause that is disputed.
The way this type of science works –
1) Physical research shows that lots of creatures died out for some reason.
2) Ask why creatures die out now, answers from alarmist literature = climate change
3) What causes climate change = CO2
4) How much warming would cause that amount of deaths = 6ºC
5) How much CO2 would have would have lead to 6ºC = 4500Gtons (or tonnes? Who cares so long as the answer is scary enough to make the news.)
There are some facts and a lot of cenjecture thrown in till no one knows what’s fact and what is guesswork.
Ironically, the alarmist climate literature comes up with the proof for mass extinctions from the sort of research mentioned above and so we have circular consensus.
Is that the same as a “Circle Je##k? 😉
Naughty 😉
I was thinking of them disappearing up each other’s… err research.
That is exactly what it looks like they did. There are no direct measurements, not even proxy measurements. They just back calculate from the assumed warming, then using their assumptions of forcings and feedbacks, determine the amount of CO2 needed to make it all fit. See:
http://www.physorg.com/news166715232.html
http://post-gazette.com/healthscience/19990208warming2.asp
Not to mention the fact that this proves that what we are seeing now is unprecedented is not accurate.
Oooh, be fair. There was probably a computer model consulted too, or maybe an magic 8 ball.
And what algorithm did they use, and who created that particular model???
Right TinyCO2 – Forgot about the magic black box with mystery code.
Wrong. There are proxy measures. Are you aware of these? There are plenty of books and many websites that explain indirect measures in detail. They are not arbitrary but are tested against actual measures in the present time. Higher temps and CO2. I think your description is a fantasy. Or else, tell us where you found the chain of reasoning you describe so we can all go look at it and have a laugh.
ChrisD:
The dispute is with the claims made those supporting the AGW position.
Without accurate equipment to take measurements over that 200 thousand year period there is no way to support the claims made.
We can guess at a range of temperatures during the period 55 million years ago by the location of types of biological activity. It would be easy to say it was cooler or warmer in certain regions which could lead to assumptions on a global scale. The WAG being discussed was based on the ass-umption that CO2 is a major driver for long term weather weather conditions.
Mike, the fundamental issue raised by this post is that “Volcanoes Make Lots Of CO2 – When It Suits The Global Warming Argument”.
That’s what the post title says, anyway, and the first paragraph just uses more words to say the same thing.
The extra paragraph about measurement is explicitly marked as a “BTW”, i.e., not the main point of the post.
So the post is really about volcanic CO2 production, right? I was not aware of any real dispute among geologists that there have been times in the past when volcanic activity greatly exceeded what it is today. Doesn’t that make the main point of the post a bit sketchy? Does volcanic activity vary according to the needs of climate scientists, or is this just a historical fact that geologists have known for a long time?
You are an idiot Chris.
ChrisD:
The Geologist speaking used Volcanoes as an example but the current activity is ignored or minimized. There fore the correct statement “When it suits the GW argument”.
You have dug so deep you will be buried when reality strikes just like the followers of Jim Jones.
You are a WIKI sort of “person”(I think you are one of the human race but doubts remain) so I link a view to your fate:
Peoples Temple was a quasireligious organization founded in 1955 by Jim Jones that, by the mid-1970s, included over a dozen locations in California including its headquarters in San Francisco. It is best known for the events of November 18, 1978 in Guyana, in which 918 people died at the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project (informally, and now commonly, called “Jonestown”), a nearby airstrip at Port Kaituma, and Georgetown.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple
History often repeats itself if people do not learn from the past.
The Geologist speaking used Volcanoes as an example but the current activity is ignored or minimized.
Can you source your claim that we don’t have a decent estimate of current annual volcanic CO2 emissions? I’d be interested in that.
You are a WIKI sort of “person
I get essentially none of my information from wikis, so that’s wrong, and everything that follows is wildly off-topic.
Hotdog!! ChrisD never to ceases to amuse me with his thought processes. I find them extremely humorous but when analyzed, I kind of feel sorry for him with the reasoning process. Why? I find that there is no reason in the process.
Once again, you post a pointless ad nom without a single scientific point of interest. Remarkable.
A beautiful example of the sophistry employed by alarmists.
So they are saying the Earth recovered from 6 degree C rapid increase in global temps. Other studies of the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum say average temps went up by as much as 9 degrees C. And the Earth recovered. Temps went down, CO2 went down.
Ohhh, now I see the rationale for all the alarmism.
It’s a scientific fact that only cute creatures and plants are adversely affected by CO2.
only the best ones!
Actually this fits nicely with the new claim that the Siberian Traps caused a massive extiction 250 million years ago. Volcanic activity lots of CO2 species died. Lots of geologic events are being turned into “GHG/CO2 kills” headlines. One I heard several years ago was that a methane hydrate eruption from the Voring Plateau near Norway released so much CH4 that it ended the last ice age.
Yes, it is the modern day equivalent for geologist to claiming there is gold in that deposit, or oil in that formation…….
What ever leads to the biggest research grant. I can’t say that I blame them but it is sad to see geologists joining the fray.
Despite the wealth of information they still haven’t nailed the KT boundary extinction, let alone some of the more obscure events. Deccan Traps or Chicxulub meteorite? Rapidly rising or falling temperature? Mass fires from impact ejecta or clathrates explosion? Almost instant wipeout or spread by a thousand years or so? CO2 or SO2? De-oygenation of the oceans or acidification. Or some, as yet to be discovered cause?
In other words, they’re guessing, and using modern CO2 = catastrophy theories to colour their judgement.
But hey climate scientes can pull a 0.01 degree C signal from some magical pine trees that are teleconnected to the entire global climate. Pretty darn good. Geologists are learning though. I am sure they will come up with something as impressive:)
I think that if there was volcanic activity then there was co2 emitted but how much? They just use the modern paradigm about co2 to claim there was a greenhouse catastrophe.This is why I no longer take any notice of these people and the AGW message they are trying put across to the UK.
From an event that took place 55 mya, relatively recently in geologic time, geologists should be able to tell us what volcanoe, or system caused the unusual event. The rock formations created from the eruption should be identified and known. If the event is not demonstrated in the rock record, they I have little confidence in simply saying: well it was warmer, we can tell that from the fossils, so it must have been high CO2, and since we can’t blame it on Man, it must have been a volcanoe. What volcanoe? Where are the rocks it formed? Can we determine what the composition of the melt might have been?
Like TinyCO2 said – circular logic. Before post-normal science took hold, geologist would have identified the evidence in the rock record then studied what it meant at the time it happened.
They do know all this, i.e., where the volcanoes were and such. I am still waiting to nail down a confirmation of my understanding of what was really said.
ChrisD:
You mean they sent a satellite back 55 million years to orbit the planet and record events for 200 thousand years so they would have reliable proof?
I am impressed!
More SWAG!
You mean they sent a satellite back 55 million years to orbit the planet
Hmmm. No. They did what geologists do, since that’s what they are.
Most geologists examine evidence and base a hypothesis around the evidence. Not the other way round.
You don’t know that that isn’t precisely what they did.
This study sent my bullshit detector through the ceiling.
Have you seen the study, or just the Telegraph article?
Chris says:
“Hmmm. No. They did what geologists do, since that’s what they are.”
Yes, but are they post-normal geologists?
I simply stated: what volcanoes, where is the evidence…..
And I have absolutely no problem with that. That is a perfectly reasonable question. What I objected to were the characterizations of how and why they did things, which were made, as far as I can tell, in the absence of evidence. At least, when I asked “How do you know this?” nobody answered.
Using a model to calculate some concentration of GHGs at some point in the past to fit a warming scenario then stating that level of GHGs was caused to be emitted by volcanic activity with no discussion of the evidence of that activity is fitting data to a hypothesis.
It would be, but how do you know that that’s what they did?
In this case no evidence or data has been presented – it is model output.
Well, in the newspaper article no evidence was presented. I’ll be honest, this is part of what I don’t understand. Y’all seem to be acting like the article is a research paper that is shockingly low on evidence. But it’s just a newspaper article. It clearly doesn’t cover all of their data, methods, and conclusions.
Maybe you don’t want to spoil the big surprise that someone has solved the mystery of what caused the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.
There’s no “big surprise”, I simply want to confirm that what I think is correct before I post something that subsequently turns out to be wrong.
Nobody has solved the PETM. It’s a hypothesis, like any other hypothesis. It will be accepted, or rejected, based on the evidence.
Or maybe you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
I actually don’t do that.
What rock formations are you referencing Chris? What volcanic formations provide the record of this massive volcanic event that spewed all this CO2 and dramatically changed the climate 55 mya?
I really don’t want to add a whole lot more until I can confirm what I think. What I will say, because I do know this for sure, is that not all of the 4500Gt carbon mentioned in the Telegraph article is directly volcanic.
Read what the article says carefully (I read this wrong the first time, too):
It says that the volcanic activity caused the GHGs to be released, not that the volcanoes themselves released it all. This is an important distinction.
Yes it is an important distinction. But they are forming their evidence to fit their hypothesis. You know, the one that lands the most funding. Why not a meteor impact? Why not some other event that could have release trapped GHGs? They don’t know, they are speculating that volcanic activity cause something to occur that their models now show how increased GHGs led to a change in temperature and extinction of species.
Well I have no problem believing their models predict how increased CO2 caused an increase in temps but that is not data or evidence of what happened. Where is the evidence for what caused the increase in CO2? How much? or did they just back calculate how much was required based on how their model works, as I stated earlier?
No one believed the theory that the dinos may have gone extinct from a meteor impact until the actual crater was discovered and dated to the correct time period. I am simply saying that some physical evidence is required to take this assertion seriously.
they are forming their evidence to fit their hypothesis.
How do you know this, exactly?
Why not a meteor impact? Why not some other event that could have release trapped GHGs? They don’t know, they are speculating that volcanic activity cause something to occur that their models now show how increased GHGs led to a change in temperature and extinction of species.
How do you know any of this?
Because their claims are not supported by science.
Have you Chris? There is no paper referenced, just information given by the scientists as part of a lecture. – “By studying rock sediments from millions of years ago geologists have been able to model how increases in greenhouse gases led to temperature change and extinction of species. ”
If you have a published paper on this, please share the link and claim victory, or at least limit the speculation.
The study is one of modeling GHGs and temp changes to explain the well known Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. They have been able to model how increased GHGs caused an led to changes in temps. Great. Where is the proof of what caused it?
The onus is on them, not me. I do not know if a volcanoe caused it or anything else and never said I did. They did.
Because their claims are not supported by science
How do you know this? Have you seen anything other than the Telegraph article?
Chris, if you knew something that explains your questions, you would be discussing it. All I can take from this is that it is a GCM study. Wow. Using modern GCMs and increasing GHGs they were able to model a change in temps. That is a huge surprise.
If you have anything more to add, add it.
The onus is on them, not me.
I agree completely. But it certainly sounds like you are dismissive without knowing much, if anything, about their research or their methods. All you know, insofar as I am aware, is what was in the Telegraph article, which we already know has tripped us up once.
If you have a published paper on this, please share the link and claim victory, or at least limit the speculation.
As I’ve said, I don’t have a whole lot more specific to say until I have confirmation that I’m right. I’m waiting for an email.
Chris, if you knew something that explains your questions, you would be discussing it.
Yes. That’s why I’m not discussing it. I think I understand what’s going on, but I don’t know it for sure.
My point is that I believe you guys are going off half-cocked based on nothing more than a newspaper article, and we all know how reliable they are on science matters.
As a cyclist, the thing that I hate about cars is that they take up way too much room on the road. You remind me of old beat up gas guzzler which occupies about 20 times as much space on this blog as there is any rational reason for.
I am not dismissive, I am skeptical. A scientist that says they were able to model how increased GHGs led to a change in temperature and species extinction is not very impressive.
We know that species went extinct 55 mya. We know the models that are being used and their assumptions on forcing and feedbacks (not conceding the point – that is for another discussion) will yield increased temps for increased CO2.
So there is nothing new or novell here.
What is missing is the what, where and why? I think I am in my right to be skeptical. When you get your email, give it a shot. If they have the smoking crater I will be very eager to read about it. After all what caused the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum is pretty big news. Caused being the important word in that sentence.
As a cyclist, the thing that I hate about cars is that they take up way too much room on the road. You remind me of old beat up gas guzzler which occupies about 20 times as much space on this blog as there is any rational reason for.
Yeah Chris, why cant you just go somewhere else with your questions and facts and science, and leave us alone in our echo chamber. I want to come here and only see comments completely agreeing with everything Steven says and not questioning anything. Because that is the mark of a true skeptic.
Matt:
It seems that you have a really good understanding of what science really is!!!!
Would care to discuss your background in Phrenology, Numerology, or PNS because you do not seem aware of what science is about if you truly believe Chris’ comments and questions are in any way based on scientific theory or scientific facts.
Fantasy writers have a better comprehension of science than ChrisD!
You remind me of old beat up gas guzzler
More trenchant scientific analysis from Steve.
I think I am in my right to be skeptical.
Of course you are. But these statements are not “skeptical”:
* they are forming their evidence to fit their hypothesis
* They don’t know, they are speculating that volcanic activity cause something to occur
* did they just back calculate how much was required based on how their model works, as I stated earlier?
That’s not skepticism, it’s denial. You said all these things without any evidence, as far as I know.
Chris,
Using the word denial to describe what I have said here is completely uncalled for. I am reacting to the article as written. Because I have not accepted the premise as stated by the professor:
“Professor Jim Zachos, of the University of California, said that 55 million years ago volcanic activity caused around 4,500 gigatons of greenhouse gases to be released into the atmosphere over thousands of years. ”
does not make it denial. He put forth the premise and even though you have been posturing like you know something more about this, you have produced nothing, zip, zero, nadda to provide any further evidence for this premise.
I am through with your nonsense and name calling. Produce evidence to support the premise or leave it alone. I await the breakthrough science about what caused the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.
I tried to think of a different word and didn’t come up with one. Maybe you have an alternative. The things you said appear not to have been evidence-based. That is not skepticism.
And if you think that “That is not skepticism, that is denial” is name calling, try sitting on this side of the aisle for a while.
I await the breakthrough science about what caused the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.
So is everyone else, including me. That’s not the issue. The issue is being totally dismissive of a report/study/whatever it is by a scientist you know nothing about based on evidence of which you have none.
Now that I think of it, perhaps “dismissive” would have been a better choice than denial.
Matt says:
Yeah Chris, why cant you just go somewhere else with your questions and facts and science
Thanks, Matt, but all that’s going to accomplish is to get insults hurled your way, too.
Try doing some math.
5000 gigatons / 6.3 gigatons per year = 793 years
793 years ago the Estonian tribal leader Lembitu of Lehola was killed in a battle against Teutonic Knights
During that 793 years, nature emitted over 150,000 gigatons of carbon.
Chris,
Your assertion that I have not evidence is idiotic. My skeptical comments are based on a lack of evidence to support the premise. Quit trying to turn it around. That is your typical Sophistry.
As for: “So is everyone else, including me. That’s not the issue. The issue is being totally dismissive of a report/study/whatever it is by a scientist you know nothing about based on evidence of which you have none.”
You are wrong. That IS THE ISSUE. I know what the article said, and didn’t say. I have not made any assertions therefore I require no evidence. You want to support the premise but offer nothing to refute my pointing out that they have offered nothing new or novell.
As usual you just want to argue.
I have tried several times to have a discussion about this and many other topics and you are only interested in trying to turn the topic onto me to prove someone or something is wrong. Well that is their job. Yours is apparently to distract from the fact that they cannot support their sensentional statements.
Can anyone point me to anything that ChisD has added to this thread? He seems to want to argue in support of a scientist who has made sensenational statements to the media in support of his talk at the Geological Society in London, England. He keeps acting like he knows the scientist is correct even when legitimate questions are asked, but produces nothing to refute the skeptics questions. I must be missing it. Anyone have a link?
I’m sorry, I’m not trying to argue. I am only noting that you’ve said things like “they are forming their evidence to fit their hypothesis” based on what appears to me to be no evidence. All you have is the newspaper story, which doesn’t say much of anything. You don’t know what evidence he has.
That is all I’m saying. I do not know what is unreasonable about that.
He keeps acting like he knows the scientist is correct
Well, maybe that’s the problem. No, I don’t “know” that the scientist is correct (how could I, or anyone?). If that is the impression I’ve given, it was not what I intended.
No, what I think is that the article gives the false impression that big volcanoes blew, emitted a bunch of CO2, and killed the little fishies. I believe that that is not the hypothesis. It is not that simple.
One thing I do know is that Steve is incorrect in using 100,000 years in his calculation of natural emissions. It should be much less than that.
Well, they made the statement that volcanic activity cause 4500 gigatons of GHGs to be released. They then use models to show how much warming is caused by that increase in GHGs. I simply stated: what volcanoes, where is the evidence…..
Did they make some measurement of atmospheric GHGs 55 mya? Did they study the volcanic system that caused the GHGs to be emitted? Using a model to calculate some concentration of GHGs at some point in the past to fit a warming scenario then stating that level of GHGs was caused to be emitted by volcanic activity with no discussion of the evidence of that activity is fitting data to a hypothesis. In this case no evidence or data has been presented – it is model output.
You continue to infer you know something about their hypothesis that none of us know, but will not present it. What is the problem Chris?
Maybe you don’t want to spoil the big surprise that someone has solved the mystery of what caused the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Or maybe you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Well, they made the statement that volcanic activity cause 4500 gigatons of GHGs to be released.
I responded to this but must have hit the wrong reply link.
As usual, Chris avoids the point of the article.
Which mutually exclusive alarmist claim is true?
No-one knows what caused the PETM. CO2 is unlikely as it was already at twice recent levels.
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full
Any more CO2 would have a limited effect on Earth’s climate.
India crashed into Asia 55m years ago. More than a coincidence I think.
John E
That is the latest considerations as I know them!
There are always those that want to rewrite history to fit a preferred ( I will not call it a theory)! PNS works its magic!
A huge release of methane seems to have been involved in the petm according to some articles I have just read.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Greenhouse_Earth_Methane_powered_runaway_global_warming_999.html
I am not convinced that it is greenhouse gas that is the cause though.
Have you looked at how little Methane absorbs IR photons?
It is supposed to be more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than co2 according to the people who believe that only a change in greenhouse gas can cause climate change.
people who believe that only a change in greenhouse gas can cause climate change
I apologize in advance for disagreeing with you, but nobody believes that.
It is supposed to be more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than co2
It’s not “supposed” to be a better heat-trapper, it is a better heat-trapper. That’s simple physics that has nothing to do with climate change.
geez, i thought i learned that volcanic eruptions caused cooling…
Not that simple. The particulates tend to cool, but the GHGs tend to warm. The net result of a volcano depends, in effect, on the ratio, combined with the fact that the cooling effect is short-lived. But most volcanoes have little effect on climate because they just don’t emit enough of either.
Volcanoes don’t emit much CO2, except when they cause the climate to warm 6C and kill off half the life on earth.
As I previously noted: Although it’s easy to misread it that way, the article doesn’t say that they emitted all that carbon, and, in fact, that is not the hypothesis.
Volcanoes also produce heat as well as GHG but most produce little heat and GHC because they are short-lived.
I don’t know anyone who would dispute that.
Except during the PETM when it was convenient to support a delusional fantasy of human caused global warming.
Dom Penman writes:
“It is supposed to be more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than co2 according to the people who believe that only a change in greenhouse gas can cause climate change.”
Have you looked at this chart lately?
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-188-post-3342.html#pid3342
See how insignificant Methane is as an IR absorber?
Gas does not “trap” heat.
Yes I see but could this be because methane is such a small part of the atmosphere.
http://www.epa.gov/methane/
Here is what the program of the Geologic Society in Londan says Prof. Zachos will be presenting:
“10.25
The tempo of climate and carbon cycle variability across the Paleocene-Eocene boundary: Implications for the origin of hyperthermals
Jim Zachos, University of California”
Here is a link to that paper: http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/pubs/Zachos_etal_2010_EPSL.pdf
That paper basically describes a high resolution sediment core that was examined using carborn isotope extrusions (CEI), that was orbitally tuned and was 4.52 my old.
The PETM is discussed in broad context but this core obviously does not give any information about the PETM because it is not nearly old enough.
Zachos has many other publications that discuss the PETM and CEI investigations. He has put together some impressive studies on the subject. Some of his papers on the subject are:
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/pubs/Stap_etal_2010.pdf
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/pubs/Kelly_etal_2010.pdf
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/pubs/Westerhold_etal_2009.pdf
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~jzachos/pubs/Zeebe_etal_ngeo578.pdf
My take on these studies are: the thermal maxima are assumed to be caused by the concentrations of GHGs
continued from above:
There is nothing that indicates causation of the increases of GHGs or the timing of the increas as it relates to the increase in temps. Without the knowing the cause, we do not know if the CO2 was released as a result of increased temps, or caused the increased temps.
I still do not see any evidence of causation, and I still feel that the research has been used to further an alarmist agenda. This is evidenced by this statement by the Geologic Society:
“The geological evidence from the 55 million year event and from earlier warming episodes suggests that such an addition [a massive increase in greenhouse gases caused by the activities of mankind] is likely to raise average global temperatures by at least 5 to 6C, and possibly more, and that recovery of the Earth’s climate in the absence of mitigation measures could take 100,000 years or more. Numerical models of the climate system support such an interpretation. In the light of the evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be.”
Here is the poster from the lecture: http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/webdav/site/GSL/shared/pdfs/events/flyers/Past%20Carbons%20A3%20Poster_NoCrops%20-%20Nov%2009.pdf
The silence is defening:
The level of CO2 on Venus points at mankind having polluted and left that planet. Nature certainly could not have produced those levels.
So if CO2 is problem then the only way to fix the problem is to knock off 3 or 4 billion people, are there any volunteers? I’m just a truck driver ya I make some CO2 but Al Gore who likes bringing stuff like this up flies around in a jet and makes 100 times more so he can tell people like you about global warming and polar bears. So what’s the solution? I’m sure it made a lot of CO2 to make all these computers and deliver them to everybody so we could set around and pontificate about this problem CO2.