John Cook says that volcanoes produce harmless amounts of CO2 :
Published reviews of the scientific literature by Moerner and Etiope (2002) and Kerrick (2001) report a minimum-maximum range of emission of 65 to 319 million tonnes of CO2 per year. Counter claims that volcanoes, especially submarine volcanoes, produce vastly greater amounts of CO2 than these estimates are not supported by any papers published by the scientists who study the subject.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
Then today, we hear that CO2 from volcanoes caused mass extinctions :
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. This caused the planet to warm by 6C (10.8F), forcing whole ecosystems, including early mammals, to adapt, migrate or die out in certain areas.
The numbers are not incompatible between the two authors. At 319 Million tons per year, it would take 14,000 years to emit 4,500 gigatons. What is different is how the same message is spun.
Alarmists take the same numbers to generate opposite conclusions when convenient. When it suits the argument, volcanoes are harmless producers of CO2. Otherwise, volcanoes are deadly producers of CO2.
How is it that the same amount of CO2 emissions can be typical equilibrium conditions, or wildly catastrophic and requiring hundreds of thousands of years to recover?
The first thing to note is that the Telegraph article contains an error: The 4,500Gt estimate is actually for carbon, not greenhouse gases.
The midrange of estimates for current average annual volcanic output is something like 200 million tonnes of CO2. That’s about 55 million tonnes of carbon (I think that’s right–someone correct me if I’m wrong). If we use that number rather than assuming that the range maximum occurs every year, it would take something like 82,000 years for volcanoes to emit 4,500GtC.
If emitting 4,500GtC over 82,000 years represents typical equilibrium conditions, isn’t it reasonable to say that emitting the same amount over, say, 5,000 years would not be equilibrium conditions?
over 5,000 years, plants and the oceans emit 2,000,000,000,000,000,000 pounds of carbon.
Assume your figures are right this time, how much do plants and the oceans sequester in that time?
To talk about one without the other is a red herring.
Those clever plants! They know to sequester CO2 emitted by other plants, and ignore CO2 emitted by volcanoes. But only during periods of time when the author wants them to.
I’m sorry, but that’s completely nonresponsive.
As you point out, the normal “respiration” of oceans and vegetation, along with average volcanic emissions, are part of the equilibrium state. If you compress 82,000 years of volcanic emissions into five years, that is no longer the equilibrium state, which I believe is the post topic. It is the answer to the question you ask in the final paragraph.
Converting megatonnes to pounds and posting it with lots of zeroes doesn’t change that at all.
I’m sorry, that is completely non-responsive.
Which alarmist claim is correct? Volcanoes cause no global warming or volcanoes cause massive global warming?
You refuse to ever discuss the topic of the article. You are like a really bad lawyer who gets held in contempt and debarred.
Which alarmist claim is correct? Volcanoes cause no global warming or volcanoes cause massive global warming?
They can both be correct, as my comment explains in detail. You haven’t bothered to even try to refute it; instead, you bring in the completely irrelevant plants & oceans red herring.
You refuse to ever discuss the topic of the article. You are like a really bad lawyer who gets held in contempt and debarred.
What utter horseshit. Are you actually laughing when you write this? My comment is about nothing but the topic of this article. It’s shows how they aren’t using “the same numbers to generate opposite conclusions.” It’s a direct response to the question you pose in the final paragraph. It uses your numbers, except that I corrected the error that you failed to detect in the Telegraph article.
You are beyond belief. Up is down and black is white. I cannot understand how so many of your readers are unable to penetrate what it is that you do.
So it is OK to make mutually exclusive claims.
They’re not mutually exclusive. They’re different amounts over different time frames.
Here are two claims about Vitamin D:
1. 3650 mcg taken over a one year period in daily doses of 10mcg helps maintain bone health.
2. 3650mcg taken over a one week period in daily doses of 520mcg can cause cardiac arrhythmia and many other health issues.
Are they mutually exclusive, or can they both be true?
Show me where my comment is wrong instead of just repeating this ridiculous claim ad infinitum.
John Cook says that volcanoes are not significant contributors of CO2.
Since you are incapable of giving a straight answer, I take it that you consider his stement to be false.
John Cook says that volcanoes are not significant contributors of CO2.
No, he doesn’t. That article you cite is a straightforward refutation of the “Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans” myth. Nowhere does he say that volcanic emissions are “not significant” or anything similar. You made that up.
The only thing he says that’s even remotely close to what you’re claiming is this sentence, where I’ve highlighted the part that makes you wrong:
That is not the same as saying that they’re not significant.
I take it that you consider his stement to be false.
No, since it’s your statement and not his.
Since you are incapable of giving a straight answer
Irony on a galactic scale. You have yet to respond in any meaningful way to my direct rebuttal of the post topic or to any of my comments, which also bear directly on the post topic.
So they do and they they don’t. I got ya.
I got ya.
No, it’s patently obvious that you don’t. You don’t appear to have even a glimmer of comprehension of what I said.
Yep. I are so dum
Official statement on climate change from British Geological Society says:
Some of the carbon input to the atmosphere comes from volcanoes but carbon from that source is equivalent to only about 1% of what human activities add annually and is not contributing to a net increase.
They also tell us that volcanoes cause catastrophic CO2 increase.
Yep. I are so dum
It appears so. You seem completely unable to comprehend that different emission rates make a difference.
Do you understand the difference between ingesting 100 aspirin in a year and 100 aspirin in an hour?
Yes, different alarmist produce different noxous emissions at different times depending on what they are trying to prove.
Official statement on climate change from British Geological Society says:
“Some of the carbon input to the atmosphere comes from volcanoes49,50, but carbon from that source is equivalent to only about 1% of what human activities add annually and is not contributing to a net increase.”
Here are the references:
49 Williams, S.N., Schaeffer, S.J., Calvache, M.L. and Lopez, D., 1992, Global carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere by volcanoes. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 56, 1765-1770.
50 Marty, B. and Tolstikhin, I.N., 1998, CO2 fluxes from mid-ocean ridges, arcs and plumes. Chemical Geology 145, 233-248.
So it doesn’t increase CO2, except when it catastrophically increases CO2.
Different timespans. Different rates of emission.
Different dosages of Vitamin D.
Get it?
Excuse me while I bang my head on the desk a while.
Chris,
Nice attempt to hide the words in the quote that directly refute your claim.
To quote:
The only thing he says that’s even remotely close to what you’re claiming is this sentence, where I’ve highlighted the part that makes you wrong:
Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere.
That is not the same as saying that they’re not significant.
Extend your selection to include :
volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere.
The definition of “bit player” is “A player that has a small or unimportant role in something”
So it is EXACTLY the same as saying they’re not significant.
You are either extremely stupid or a blatantly trying to mislead. (and I don’t think you’re stupid).
Uhhh, Robb, you don’t need to “extend” anything. I quoted the entire sentence, including the “bit player” part. It’s right there. It’s even in YOUR post, where you quoted MY post.
I quoted the whole sentence but highlighted the part that makes Steve wrong. Cook doesn’t say that it’s insignificant, he says that it’s insignificant in the recent changes in concentration.
Volcanoes are no more than a bit player in the recent increases in concentration.
Get it? Now, would you like to revisit “either extremely stupid or blatantly trying to mislead”?
Seeing how volcanoes emit many gasses that are considered GHGs and particulates this whole issue is a flight of fantasy. There is not enough measured data to determine the GHG output from Geothermal activity. (I say Geothermal because the release of so called GHGs is not limited to Volcanoes) What is measured is probably less than 1% globally.
What ever happened at the 55 million years ago really has little to do with the globe today, what with changes it plate locations and every thing today’s climate it completely different and most species can adapt to that type of climate change over thousands of years. Think about it Polar Bears adapted to Arctic conditions and mammals learned to adapt to desert locations with temperatures 100C higher than those experienced in the Arctic.
I think it is time for a reality check and these people need to come down from their flights of fantasy.
There have been 5 or 6 Mass extinction events, or ELEs since the introduction of life on this “Rock”. It is a pretty good bet there will be others in the future and probable results will be new life forms will evolve. When or how is not important and we probably will not witness the event. The odds are against it happening soon. It is more likely that California will have a major earthquake before GHGs will run climate out of control. It id probably more likely that Yellowstone Caldera or a volcano in Washington state will erupt before runaway global warming.
If indeed the volcanoes contributed to global warming in the past, then they are he major contributor today!!!
There is NO evidence that a magic bullet changed physics in the 70s. There is evidence that some invented a CAUSE to promote to have a goal for research.
According to this Italian study there are much more geological CO2 sources besides volcano’s. In fact the entire italian region is a concentration of CO2 hot spots and in some area’s the emissions reach 99% during the night times and 75% during the day times. I really think these emissions are underestimated.
http://www.co2captureandstorage.info/docs/phlegraean.pdf
Also read http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFM.H14A..05C
Incidents like this http://www.wemjournal.org/article/S1080-6032(00)70809-X/abstract happen on a regular basis all over the world.
Geothermal activity around Mammoth lakes is one of the regions being monitored. There are also incidents where CO2 that was captured underground is released when the ground dries out and the wind blows the sand around. Natural erosion processes release CO2!
Mike,
I think your thinking is flawed;
“If indeed the volcanoes contributed to global warming in the past, then they are he major contributor today!!!”
Why today – ie in the last 150 years? Has volcanic activity measurably increased?
“There is NO evidence that a magic bullet changed physics in the 70s. ”
Physics has not changed at all. The same physics that says GHGs contribute to warming exists now as it did in Tyndall’s time. The proportion of that contribution has measurably altered. It would be strange physics indeed if it’s contribution to the warming didn’t alter with it.
Humans contribute less than 6% of the annual CO2 in the carbon cycle. 3% of the annual cycle remains in the atmosphere, therefore humans contribute 6% of 3% that remains in the atmosphere.
The physics had to change to blame CO2 for variations in climate that were caused by natural causes before the mid 70s! Tyndall’s time had even more climate variability than we have today and it was not blamed on CO2 or other GHGs. SO WTF are you talking about?
Mike,
Please read this very slowly;
THE PHYSICS HASN’T CHANGED.
It matters not how small a percentage of carbon we contribute to the cycle, it is enough to raise the contribution of GHGs above what can naturally be sequestered. This is clear from all the reconstructions of CO2 levels for the last 1000 years;
http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/2009/lasttimecarb.jpg
So as you so eloquently put it, WTF are you talking about?
So are volcanoes CO2 neutral as Cook claims, or CO2 catastrophic as other alarmists claim?
“So are volcanoes CO2 neutral as Cook claims, or CO2 catastrophic as other alarmists claim?”
Are these volcanoes you’re talking about all erupting at the time or not?
The Earth generates a constant amount of heat through radioactive decay. Volcanoes are how they maintain steady state thermal equilibrium.
Are these volcanoes you’re talking about all erupting at the time or not?
Steve is unable to understand that the claims are not mutually exclusive, no matter how many times he offhandedly states that they are. There’s a difference between emitting 4500GtC over 5,000 years as opposed to 82,000 years,
So which one is it? Cook claims that volcanic CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere. Other alarmists claim that it accumulates catastrophically.
No matter how much BS you spew, you can’t avoid the facts.
Oh, I get it, it’s a comedy act! It all makes sense now.
Yes it is a comedy act. Volcanoes do not affect atmospheric CO2 and they also affect it catastrophically.
And you are the dummy.
Volcanoes do not affect atmospheric CO2 and they also affect it catastrophically.
Yes, sort of like aspirin cures headaches and is also fatal. It just depends on the amount and the time over which it is taken.
And you are the dummy
That’s cool, since you are an idiot. (I can certainly say that, since you’ve already called me that more than once, right?)
Keep it up Chris. I appreciate it.
Cook says that volcanic CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere. If it does not accumulate for 82,000 years, how much has accumulated?
Cook says that volcanic CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere. If it does not accumulate for 82,000 years, how much has accumulated?
“Volcanic CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere” is a misstatement. It’s missing its conditional clause. The correct statement would be “Volcanic CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere as long as emissions remain at approximately ‘normal’ levels..”
Carbon sinks are able to keep up with the average annual output of ~55MtC, so there is little change in CO2 concentration.
Carbon sinks are not able to keep up if it is being emitted at a much higher rate, so the CO2 concentration increases.
How friggin’ difficult is this to understand?
I see, so you are taking charge of Cook’s belief system and web site now.
No, actually, I’m attempting to impart a really simple concept that Cook clearly understands and you seem not to.
I see. So volcanoes don’t affect atmospheric CO2 and they also affect it catastrophically, depending on the needs of the author.
Did I ever mention that I did volcano research at a national laboratory for several years? ;^)
“So volcanoes don’t affect atmospheric CO2 and they also affect it catastrophically, depending on the needs of the author.”
Steve, are you just being a WUM or are you really having trouble understanding?
Volcanoes are not currently affecting Co2 levels by much. A serious or series of significant eruptions could catastrophically.
“Did I ever mention that I did volcano research at a national laboratory for several years? ”
Not something I would be proud to admit given your comments above.
Yea, that was back in the days when scientists felt like they needed to have some actual evidence to back up their theory.
So it is just a wind up then.
So volcanoes don’t affect atmospheric CO2 and they also affect it catastrophically, depending on the needs of the author.
I don’t know whether you actually are thick or you’re just trying to provoke an intemperate reaction. If the former, you have my sympathy. If the latter, it’s not working.
What I do hope is that at least a few of your fans are objective enough to see what you’re doing.
Seeing as how CO2 is less than 5%, on average, of all GHGs. This is all hypothetical BS any way. Seeing how CO2 is NOT a well mixed atmospheric gas this is all hypothetical BS any way.
The comedians at this site are the comedy pair of Chris and Lazarus as they are either trying to play a joke or do not have an effin clue.
I for one welcome because you provide evidence of the level of brilliance involved in AGW alarmism! Or should that be Climate Cult NON-science.
Seeing as how CO2 is less than 5%, on average, of all GHGs.
How do you figure that?
CO2 is NOT a well mixed atmospheric gas
Well, that depends on your definition of “well-mixed.” The full range of concentrations in this NASA map is only 10ppm (376ppm – 386ppm). I’d call that pretty well mixed.
* “Which alarmist claim is correct? Volcanoes cause no global warming or volcanoes cause massive global warming?”
* “So they do and they they don’t. I got ya.”
* “So it doesn’t increase CO2, except when it catastrophically increases CO2.”
* “So are volcanoes CO2 neutral as Cook claims, or CO2 catastrophic as other alarmists claim?”
* “Cook claims that volcanic CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere. Other alarmists claim that it accumulates catastrophically. ”
* “Yes it is a comedy act. Volcanoes do not affect atmospheric CO2 and they also affect it catastrophically.”
* “I see. So volcanoes don’t affect atmospheric CO2 and they also affect it catastrophically, depending on the needs of the author.”
It’s a good thing it was Steve doing this and not me, otherwise the “Stop spamming” comments would be flying through the air, eh?
@Lazarus,
Please read this even slower than you wanted Mike to read your reply.
You said:
“THE PHYSICS HASN’T CHANGED.
It matters not how small a percentage of carbon we contribute to the cycle, it is enough to raise the contribution of GHGs above what can naturally be sequestered. This is clear from all the reconstructions of CO2 levels for the last 1000 years;”
Yes it does matter.
I’ll illustrate for you…
The weight of the earth’s atmosphere is 4.41 million billion tons. (this can not be argued).
According to the CDIAC, from 1751 to 2007 the TOTAL human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere was 337 billion tons. (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview_2006.html & http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/graphics/cumulative_global_1751_2007.jpg)
That works out to a little over 72ppm (36ppm after you take into account natural sinks absorb about half. Even less when you consider the half-life but we’ll go with 36ppm for now)
Here’s where you need to go very slowly…If CO2 concentrations are at 390PPM and we’re responsible for 36ppm, do you think good old mother earth would have reached the magical 350ppm “tipping point” without us?
Please note the above figures are actual calculations and NOT model output.
So the only thing you’ve said that’s correct is THE PHYSICS HAVEN”T CHANGED. Its PHYSICALLY impossible that such a small percentage that has our fingerprint on it has anything to do with anything.
Now WTF were you talking about?
If CO2 concentrations are at 390PPM and we’re responsible for 36ppm, do you
Oops. You’ve mixed up mass and volume. Even assuming it’s right (I haven’t checked), your 36ppm number is by weight, but 390ppm is the current concentration by volume (it’s more correctly written as ‘390ppmv’).
The preindustrial level was ~280ppmv and stable. It’s now ~390ppmv and rising. So we’re responsible for 110ppmv. That’s about a 40% increase over preindustrial levels, and that’s not model output either.
Its PHYSICALLY impossible that such a small percentage that has our fingerprint on it has anything to do with anything.
The percentage is not actually so small, is it?
Robb’
“That works out to a little over 72ppm (36ppm after you take into account natural sinks absorb about half. Even less when you consider the half-life but we’ll go with 36ppm for now)”
Unfortunately for you scenario we wont go for 36ppm for now or at any time in the near future. Atmospheric Co2 has risen from pre-industrial times from around 280 ppm to 390ppm and rising by about 1.9 ppm/yr (That’s 110 ppm if you have managed to keep up).
Humans have emitted much more than that with 50%-60% being absorbed by natural sinks, (there is evidence that suggests this value is declining suggesting saturation may occur).
Since you have had an epic fail getting the basic figures right it is clear that you don’t know WTF you are talking about.
If your basic premise is the old denier argument that our emissions are too small to have an effect then you might want to educate yourself as Arrhenius figured that it would over a century ago.
See below for full rebuttal, but there were a few things I forgot to mention.
You said: “Atmospheric Co2 has risen from pre-industrial times from around 280 ppm to 390ppm and rising by about 1.9 ppm/yr (That’s 110 ppm if you have managed to keep up).”
Now let me get this straight. WHen you say “preindustrial times” do you mean times before 1850 when we were in the LIA?
Because I know that you know that as temp goes up permafrost and oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. (isn’t that part of the mantra you guys espouse?) One would EXPECT CO2 levels to go up (maybe even 110ppm if you haven’t managed to keep up) when an ice age ends.
Lazarus & Chris,
You got me, I forgot to convert to ppm(v/v). I don’t have the calculation in front of me (but I’ll get it when I leave work). But chew on this. “Carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere is considered a trace gas currently occurring at an average concentration of about 390 parts per million by volume or 591 parts per million by mass.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxidev)
So by volume it’s actually lower than mass. Thanks for pointing out my mistake and PROVING my point for me.
Also…
Chris, when you said “The preindustrial level was ~280ppmv and stable. “, did you mean like this? (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.co2.gif)
If you meant the cherry picked CO2 levels from before we came out of the LIA seemed stable. I guess you have a point. Wait, i made another mistake…you never have a point.
We have a preindustrial level based on measurements taken from ice cores. Of course theses ice cores were from ice sheets that are old enough to have hundreds of thousands of years of ice stacked up. I believe it is known that before the circulated atmosphere reaches these site, which are at high latitudes, a good deal of GHGs have been washed out of the atmosphere because the atmosphere can not contain the same extent of GHGs when cold as when warmer. (lower moister content during cold weather) ( cold atmosphere meeting warm moist atmosphere results in precipitation) Lets just say a goodly portion of the CO2 has been washed from the atmosphere and that cold sea water absorbs CO2 while warm water emits CO2.
The MOST CO2 depleted region of the globe would be where the measurements are taken.
Are we talking about Cherry Picking or what?
There is another factor to consider and that is smoothing due to mixing over time as it may take firn hundreds of years to compact into stable ice. We could be seeing the increase in CO2 as a response to the warming of the RWP or even the MWP which was warmer than today as CO2 follows warming by more than 800 years.
Of course I am wondering why they use Parts Per Million when Parts Per Billion would be more dramatic and the latest is to test for Parts Per Trillion.
Personally due to the error factor in the measurement I would prefer to see it measured in Parts Per Thousand <.4pptv or 395,000ppbv or 395,000,000pptrv. We now measure our debt in Trillion so why not measure the CO2 volume the same.
Your logic appears to be “If there isn’t much X, then X is unimportant.”
I recommend not testing this logic with botulinum toxin.
Chris, when you said “The preindustrial level was ~280ppmv and stable. “, did you mean like this?
I was referring to the last several thousand years. My recollection (don’t have time to check right now) is that it had been stable for 5-10,000 years or so.
But, since you brought it up, please point to all the other places over the 400,000 years shown in your chart where the CO2 concentration was 390ppmv. Hell, point to all the places where it was over 300 ppmv.
What? There aren’t any? It’s been ranging fbetween 180 and 300ppmv for four hundred thousand years? But now its 390 and rising? Wow, that sure does prove your point, doesn’t it?
Way to avoid the main point Chris. Which was You tried to ding me for not converting PPM from mass to volume. But just like every reality denier, when confronted with the fact that PPM(v/v) is LOWER than PPM(w/w), you changed the subject.
As far as your “stable” CO2 levels are concerned, how deluded do you have to be to think that ranging from 180 to 300 is stable?
Put your quote in a different context to realize the insanity of it: “For years my weight has been stable, between 180 and 300 lbs”
I used the graph to illustrate that Co2 levels weren’t stable not to show that CO2 was at a specific level at a certain time. For that try this:
When/if you can wrap your noodle that “5-10,000 years or so” is an eye-blink to the planet, you’ll realize the only thing less stable than your psyche is the climate.
So Chris, you scream at Steve and others for not answering your questions, but when faced with an easy verifiable fact, you deflect.
So I’ll ask this:
Since the CDIAC (and others) say 1751 to 2007 the TOTAL human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere was 337 billion tons, and we know that the atmosphere weighs ~4.41 million billion tons, that puts Mankind’s contribution at approximately, 72PPM(w/w) (~36ppm(w/w) after sinks SINCE 1751! (by weight, as you pointed out), and we also KNOW that PPM(w/w) is GREATER than PPM(v/v), how again are WE responsible for the 390PPM(v/v) number?
As an aside, it would take ~90PPM (expressed as 90ng/kg) for botulinum to be leathal to a 90kg (200lb) person. So 36PPM would do very little. Again tanks for proving my point!
Sorry, didn’t know I couldn’t post images in-line. the graphic i was referring Chris to is here: http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif
As far as your “stable” CO2 levels are concerned, how deluded do you have to be to think that ranging from 180 to 300 is stable?
Um, not deluded at all, since in the last comment I specifically stated that I was referring to the last several thousand years, which would seem to indicate that I’m not saying that 180-300ppmv is “stable.”
The simple fact is that CO2 has been stable for thousands of years until it suddenly started skyrocketing coincident with the start of the Industrial Revolution. Unless you have some other source for the added CO2 that no one else has been able to find, and an explanation for why the isotopic signature of the added CO2 matches that of burned fossil fuels, you don’t have a leg to stand on, and there’s no need for any arithmetic exercise.
As an aside, it would take ~90PPM (expressed as 90ng/kg) for botulinum to be leathal to a 90kg (200lb) person. So 36PPM would do very little. Again tanks for proving my point!
You’re way, way, way off. The lethal dose is as little as 1 nanogram per kilogram. That’s one billionth of a gram per thousand grams. What’s that, one part per trillion? It’s late in the day, and I’ve been up for a long time, but I think that’s right. How you got 90 parts per million is baffling.
You cannot use the logic “If there isn’t much X, it’s not important.” It’s complete nonsense. Very, very small amounts of things can be critically important.
Chris,
You just revel in being wrong!
“It is the most acutely toxic substance known, with a median lethal dose of about 1 ng/kg when introduced intravenously[3] and 3 ng/kg when inhaled[24] This means that, depending on the method of introduction into the body, a mere 90–270 nanograms of botulinum toxin could be enough to kill an average 90 kg (200 lb) person.:(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulinum_toxin”
and 1ng/kg – 1PPT (thats parps per trillion) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight_percent)
Either you take every AGW slogan you hear at face value or you’re just really bad at math.
Stop before you look even sillier.
Stop before you look even sillier.
I’m assuming from your subsequent post that you now agree that I was correct, the lethal dose is one part per trillion. As I said, you can’t assume that something has little or no effect just because there isn’t much of it.
Chris,
My bad on the 90ppm I read that page too fast now I’ll stop before i looks sillier