Is it true that volcanos, dying vegetation and the oceans cause more co2 per annum than human industry?

Question

Or is this a myth? Please post sources.

Answer 1

Volcanoes - myth, emissions are tiny.



http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html



Oceans - they emit a lot, but it's almost a wash, they both emit a lot and absorb a lot.



http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638



graph in upper right.



Decaying vegetation is the same deal. The CO2 released was taken out of the air recently, so it's a wash:



" Terrestrial (land) biology consumes about 110 units per year, mostly in support of terrestrial plant growth. About 50 units of that goes back into the atmosphere in the decay process, and about 60 units goes into the soil. The soil, it turn, releases about 60 units back to the atmosphere, resulting in a balance of fluxes in and out of the natural terrestrial biological system."



http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gccourse/chem/gases/gases_lecture.html



The recent _increase_ in atmospheric CO2 is due to human industry. The natural carbon cycle buried that carbon a very long time ago over thousands of years. We're digging it up and burning it, real fast.



Scientists can prove the CO2 increase is due to industry by measuring the isotopic ratio of the carbon. Details here:



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87



So, while there are other sources of CO2, human industry is responsible for the increase of CO2 seen on the last graph. The little teeth are the natural cycle; plants reducing it in summer, it going up a little in winter. The huge move upwards is us, burning fossil fuels.



http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mlo_record.html



We're messing up nature big time. And that threatens very bad things for coastal flooding and serious damage to our agriculture. We need to fix it.

Answer 2

This is a very good question. I will try and make this short to the point and easy to understand. To answer your question, yes those sources emit more CO2 then human activity. However, natural sources take up as much as they emit so there is no net flux to the atmosphere. While with human (anthropogenic) sources there is a net flux to the atmosphere with very little if any anthropogenic uptake. This causes about a 5.5 Giga Tons of Carbon net flux into the atmosphere. Which all on all is a small amount percentage wise but does have an effect.



So the question is can a small change in atmospheric chemistry have a large effect? The answer to this is Yes. An example is the use of CFC's had weakened the ozone layer above Antarctica. Which coincidentally is also a success story. In 2006, for the first time the ozone depletion stopped.

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=August&x=20060824150850lcnirellep0.1721918

Why did this happen? Because the developing countries of the world banned the use of CFC's in the 1990's. So human activity can effect the global environment. Why did it take so long? Because the residence time of a chemical emitted in the troposphere to get to the stratosphere is about 12-15 years. So what does that tells us? Any effect we do today we will not see the benefits for about 15 years and in the case of CFC's and ozone we will not see complete reversal until ~2060.



The most important thing is to keep people informed and educated. If you would like more info let me know. I hope this helped!

Answer 3

Yes.



http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/gcc.html

About 20 to 25 times more, depending on the precision of the measurements.



Land sources (oxidation/decomposition and respiration) produce about 10 times more. Oceans about 12 times more. Volcanoes are not significant annual contributors, although some large explosions can cause a significant short term effect.



Different websites may report it with slight differences, but I think you'll find the proportions roughly the same. This one attempts to be as inclusive as any I've seen, but keep in mind that these are theoretical estimates, and there are many complexities that simply can't be included.



One thing to take note are the sinks ( in brackets [ ] )



Look how vast the ocean is compared to the land, the atmosphere, or fossil carbon. And most of that is DEEP ocean. Given a process that mixes the surface and deep waters like the thermohaline conveyor, cycling over hundreds of years, the possibility exists for a yet to be accounted for source or sink.



Just something to consider...

Answer 4

It's indeed true that nature "produce" more CO2 than man does. However, it also "consumes" CO2. Actually it consumes more CO2 than it emits which is fortunate because human emissions only add on to the net effect.



In the below link there is a graph showing the carbon cycle and how human emissions increase the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Please note that this link goes to EIA run by the U.S. Government, who is obviously not known for caring much about global warming. These facts are not even denied by them!



http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html



Look at it this way: It's not the food you eat that makes you fat, but that extra biscuit you take every day that your body doesn't need.

Answer 5

Wiganray has answered the question with respect to volcanoes. There is a diagram at http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCycle/Images/carbon_cycle_diagram.jpg&imgrefurl=http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCycle/carbon_cycle4.html&h=417&w=540&sz=53&tbnid=AwjX7Nz5XT9WIM:&tbnh=102&tbnw=132&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcarbon%2Bcycle%26um%3D1&start=1&sa=X&oi=images&ct=image&cd=1 which shows some figures for the carbon cycle (flux figures and sinks). You will see that decaying vegetation and the oceans do emit considerably more than man's activities. But the they absorb large amounts as well and the system would be more in balance without man's activities.

Answer 6

As presented by the so-called "skeptics" it is a misrepresentation. But--if you want to see why--PLEASE--read all of this carefully:



>there are natural sources of CO2--and they produce the CO2 that is a normal level in the atmosphere. That amount is also naturally broken down--mainly by plants. Under normal circumstances, this naturally occuring CO2 thus stays at a more or less constant level--and does help keep the Earth's temperature average at a ccertain level.



>The amount of naturally occuring CO2 is greater than what humans procuce.



>However, the CO2 being released by our technology is ADDED t to the natural level of CO2--and there is no natural mechanism to break it down. In fact, the worldwide rate of CO2 breakdown is falling due to deforestation.



>As a result, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. And--since there has not been an increase in the rate of volcanic activity in the last couple of centuries, much less the last couple of decades--nor any other natural increase in the rate of CO2 release, we know the only possible source is our technology.



>The increase in CO2 released by human activity increases the naturral greenhouse effect. That results in global warming.



The point--it's not that there are other sources of CO2--that's normal-and the Earth has a natural equilibrrium temperature that is tied to that normal level of CO2--but our addition to that natural level has thrown the balance off. The fact that the amount we release is less than the natural production isn't the point. Its like an old fashioned scale that has 20pounds of weight on each side--a lot of weight--but its balanced. But add a single pound to one side--a small fraction of the total weight--and the scale willl tip completely out of balance.

Answer 7

An erupting volcano produces something like 100,000 times more co2 than man can produce in a year. Global warming is the real myth. The hottest year on record is 1934, that is just a fact, Global Warming Religious followers try to tell everyone it was in 1998, but it wasn't. Just check the heat records for yourself in major cities around the world, there are very few heat records set in the 90's much less the 00's. I have checked the ocean temps over the last 5 years as well, I'm an avid scuba diver. They average temps of the Atlantic have actually dropped over the last 5 years. Also ask where is the hole in the ozone layer is located. Holes are tangible things, if I tell you that there is a hole in your shirt the first question you will ask is, where? Global warming is not science, it is a religion or a belief system. They don't try to prove it they just speculate and then tell you that Scientist all believe in it. The fact is, it is not a tested theory, because in facts, it just won't work according to most geologist. co2 makes up less than 1% of the Earths atmosphere.

Plus, plants take in co2 and turn it into oxygen, nurseries actually keep there plants in high co2 level greenhouses to help them grow faster, the levels are very high and completely non-toxic to their workers. The plants all around the world especially in the rainforest should be growing at a rapid pace. This religion claims the rainforest is dying off because of this. Do you see the oxymoron?

Nature takes up just the amount of co2 that it produces? What? The arguments make no sense. If there is more natural co2 vs. man made co2. It's still all co2, be it man made or natural.

As you notice all you will get is theory from all of the rest of the Global Religious, they won't battle facts. Facts are, that when a volcano erupts it releases tons of gases, if you get trapped on an active volcano, the toxins will kill you very quickly. That is not when it erupts, that is just when its active or smoldering.



You will pretty much get talking points thrown at you constantly by the Global Religious. If you actually make good points like, if there is global warming why are we not breaking heat temp records everyday, much less why has my hometown Houston not broke a heat record this decade. I don't have to worry about anyone explaining these things to me because they can't. Global warming is a Religion not fact, it is just one more way for Liberals to take away peoples ability to make money and try to force the redistribution of money and impower the few highly more intelligent people who actually know everything. Wow these GR's are so smart they can't even be honest enough to admit that the hottest year in recorded history was 1934, long before "Big Oil". That is truly what GR's want is to get rid of the energy industy and Big Oil. They hate the fact that people make more money than they do when they are sooo much smarter than everyone else. The Liberals come in all different costumes, but they all have the same complaint. They want book smarts to determine how much one makes rather than drive, determination, good looks and a great personality. Just ask them what factors should be the most important, when it comes to being a success in business. I would say that liberals overwhelmingly think education is the most important, eventhough we all know otherwise.

Answer 8

Volcanoes

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Humans produce 150 times the amount of CO2 emissions per annum than volcanoes do. http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html

http://profend.com/global-warming/pages/myths.html#13



Dying Vegetation

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

The total for all vegetation (living and dying) is 120 billion tons of CO2 absorbed per annum, 119 billion tons released. Net sink of 1 billion tons.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

http://profend.com/global-warming/pages/causes.html#14



Oceans

¯¯¯¯¯¯

Absorb 90 billion tons of CO2 per annum, release 88 billion tons. Net sink of 2 billion tons.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

http://profend.com/global-warming/pages/causes.html#14





Humans

¯¯¯¯¯¯

To put it into perspective, nature recycles about 230 billion tons of CO2 per year and has a surplus capicity of 3 billion tons. In 2006 human activities resulted in the emission of 29 billion tons of CO2, nearly 10 times the amount that nature can handle.

Answer 9

I'm not sure about the specifics on dying vegetation and volcanoes, but the oceans alone release more carbon dioxide than human industry. Also, the ocean releases the CO2 when it warms. If you examine Al Gore's famous CO2/Global Temperature graph more closely, CO2 lags about 500 years behind temperature. I would love for someone to show me experimental evidence about CO2 driving global temperatures and prove me wrong. The simplest explanation, which Occam's razor reminds us is usually the correct explanation, is that the heat source fluctuates. Our planet's changing temperature is caused by the Sun warming and cooling, which with the warming and cooling of the oceans, CO2 release and absorption occur. Remember, don't try to find a simple single "enemy" like CO2, and solely blame it. Consider other, more plausible theories.

Answer 10

particular and no, whilst volcanoes and wild fires produce various CO2, human beings are to blame for fairly some the dying flora regardless the dying flora had absorbed the CO2 it would launch in the previous so as that they equivalent a internet emission of 0. motives for dying flora are organic and human orientated which includes deforestation and organic dying of vegetation. the sea although emits incredibly much no C02, i do no longer comprehend who instructed you that! Scientifically, the sea is produced from H20, Hydrogen and Oxygen, no count what chemical replace happens between those aspects it can not produce CO2. the main organic assets of CO2 are Volcanoes, Fall Foliage, Wild Fires. and farm animals care and gas emissions(it is semi-organic with the aid of actuality that it somewhat is from animals, yet they are saved by using human beings). don't get defective however, the sea produces some Methane with the aid of wallet of this gas hidden under the floor of the earth that are launched in underwater "Chimneys" at temperatures of over seven hundred stages Fahrenheit, nonetheless this volume is so minute that it ought to be suggested as incredibly much 0. Methane is a miles extra useful warmth absorber so it has a miles extra powerful greenhouse result on earth. human beings on the different hand............sigh................ --force over 650,000,000 autos that pollute CO2 with the aid of chemical differences that happen with the aid of combustion. --Burn 5,3 hundred,000,000 various Coal each 3 hundred and sixty 5 days and much extra Oil. --cut back down Forests tha can not improve returned and decreases the quantity of CO2 being became in to oxygen. --Fly thousands of hundreds of Airplanes that emit a large number of CO2 --Burn thousands of tens of millions of various organic gas of their residences. -- i ought to circulate on for hours, you get my ingredient precise? human beings emits lots extra greenhouse gases than nature each year. international Warming is semi made made and semi organic, organic being that our earth is going by way of climate replace cycles. and not using a doubt are we helping the technique circulate lots speedier. basically p.s. I spend a large number of time typing this, and that i enjoyed it :), its my exhilaration coaching somebody with regard to the placement maximum extreme to me and fairly some others. Please excuse any grammatical blunders.

Answer 11

Well, I never consider vegetation decays to supply much of the CO2, because since we cut so much trees and use up so much of it, then the CO2 in the trees does not returned to the atmosphere as it would have been if decayed in nature. Also you forgot to mention about forest fires, and melted ice (that release captured CO2 when metled)... So all in all, they are a pretty good circulations of those in nature, and it makes me laugh to think that our ''great'' scientists get all those info in their hands to make current assessments and accurate simulation models! Its funny... As for the sources you are requiring, well, I would advise you to begin to think by yourself as it becomes more and more rare, in a world where academic sources cannot be contradicted without a team of lawyers!! I miss Asia, they got it much more than us...

Answer 12

don't forget bovine emission, but volcanoes certainly don't

Answer 13

MYTH