Watching the Deniers

I left the following comment on

I await the reply with interest.

” Subaerial volcanoes are estimated to emit 242 million tonnes of CO2 per year (Morner 2002).”

Your reference appeares insufficient for me to be able to locate it.

Could you please send me a more precise reference.



Email is

or publish the full reference here.


Watching the Deniers (02:53:16) :

References are here, if you follow link to Skeptical Science. Here it is again:

“Volcanoes emit CO2 both on land and underwater. Underwater volcanoes emit between 66 to 97 million tonnes of CO2 per year. However, this is balanced by the carbon sink provided by newly formed ocean floor lava. Consequently, underwater volcanoes have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. The greater contribution comes from subaerial volcanoes (subaerial means “under the air”, refering to land volcanoes). Subaerial volcanoes are estimated to emit 242 million tonnes of CO2 per year (Morner 2002)….”

Paper (Morner 2002) is here. Citation:

Carbon degassing from the lithosphere, Global and Planetary Change 33 (2002) 185–203

[See Table 3 page 191 specifically]

Also, interesting graph comparing CO2 emissions from Mauna Loa and those tracked from volcanoes:

Comparison CO2

Note: from same Skeptical Science article






Here is some interesting info re world co2 levels

For some reason the IPCC and associated agencies and scientists in their graphs of atmospheric CO2 are using proxies til 1957.
Proxies as you are no doubt aware, are in this case, the calculation of CO2 by examining ice cores or tree rings. Obviously subject to an unknown margin of error.
An example is “Global Temperature & CO2 Concentration Since 1880. Data from NOAA’s National Climate Data Center (NCDC) & Oak Ridge National Laboratory.” (Note the use of ice core proxy until 1957)

Surprisingly there appear to be authorative data of world CO2 levels scientifically recorded directly from as early as 1812

Here are the direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 taken since 1812.

Notice a few “minor” differences?

Here is a summary of the paper explaining the direct measurements.

Note the stark difference in the measurements.

Question: If these data has been available all along, and there can be no doubt that the accuracy has to be infinitely superior to that of proxies, why are they not used by the IPCC?

Hope you find this interesting

Cheers Roger

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: