Now that we have had our second carbon negative volcano, will the myth of volcanic CO2 magnitude finally die?

Sadly, there are a few "deniers" who sprout the old furphy that volcanoes emit more CO2 than anthropogenic means.

Those of us who have reservations about AGW cringe when reading those statements.

Surely you can ignore those contributors as ignorant and lazy with their lack of knowledge of climate change....just like you can ignore the opinions of Creationists.

On average there's one or two volcanoes going off in the world all the time. So on average the CO2 emission is just background noise.

"The Smithsonian Institution has the Global Volcanism Network and a monthly bulletin about eruptions. About 50 to 60 eruptions happen each month. Some volcanoes are in constant activity — Stromboli, Kilauea, or Sakurajima, for example. There are many examples of volcanoes which show some sign of renewed danger and then erupt within an hour, though more commonly, within one day. Most eruptions last hours but some continue for weeks and months."

http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4...

However you have the fact that Volcanic activity can expose periodite rock formations which absorb CO2 at a decent rate.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4A59IB200811...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peridotite

There are three distinct forms of CO2. Two of those are related to volcanic activity. One is related to the burning of fossil fuels. The amount of volcanic CO2 has remained more or less steady for the last several thousands of years...about 285ppm. Since the introduction of fossil fuels such as coal and later oil the TOTAL amount of CO2 of all kinds has reached a high of 400ppm, though generally as of December 2010 the average is 389ppm. 103ppm of the total is man made CO2. Give that we've gone from 285ppm to 389ppm since about 1830, the beginning of the Industrial Age that fact has to be dealt with in some rational manner. Atmospheric science has set somewhere around 450ppm of CO2 as a maximum before we really begin to heat up. They could be off by 25ppm either way, but either way as we add 12 to 15ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere every decade we have to assume that we're getting ever closer to some red line we shouldn't subject ourselves to. Climate disruption in a world of seven to eight billion people that rely on a very small agricultural surplus is no joke. It's beyond politics and economics and even the fate of one nation. Climate change is serious and demands our immediate attention....no Al Gore required!

I think you will find silly ideas spouted on both sides. Truly I would never argue that volcanos produce more CO2. In much the same way, I am sure you would not argue that losing the ozone layer is increase AGW. Further, I doubt you would really want to defend that civiliation will end because of AGW, any more than I would want to defend that there is absolutely no increase in temps cause by CO2.

Noah,

You understanding of the CO2 cycle is truly atrocious. The majority of CO2 added to the atmosphere comes from decaying plants and from the ocean, not from volcanoes. Further more, I would like to add that even according to the models that you so love, warming increases the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere. Not to mention the "methane" from the permafrost that breaks down into CO2. So either you have to beleive that you models are indeed wrong, or that man has not added all of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Finally, where do you get this magical number of 450ppm where the temps are going to start increasing exponentially. You state it as fact, but never give anything to back this claim. It is a rather bold claim, which is not even supported by a majority of the warmer scientists. I find it absolutely absurd that we hit your magic number and all of the sudden all of the laws of nature change. Evidently you are unaware of the law of diminishing returns. Bottom line, hte more CO2 added to the atmosphere, the less effective each additional molecule of CO2 is as acting as a greenhouse gas. Think of a blanket, you put one on when you have none on, you will get warmer. You put one more on when you have 99 on, nearly no difference. Get it?

That's pretty interesting. It's funny, I didn't really have much problem understanding what you meant by "carbon negative," it just means that there is less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than if the volcano had not erupted. Perhaps "net carbon negative" might have been better phrasing, but it was a pretty simple concept to begin with.

Apparently that myth will not die (none of the denier myths do, because there are always deniers stupid enough to believe anything that supports their viewpoint) because there is already another question on the subject.

Carbon.....negative? I looked at some definitions for this term and it says that this is a process that removes carbon. How is a volcano which is spewing CO2 doing this?

Also, your article says that this is the first carbon negative volcano, but you say there is another. You believe that NewScientist is wrong?

EDIT:Perhaps you are right on that other volcano Adrian B (I don't really know), but I just thought it was somewhat amusing that you were seemingly correcting your own source when it stated this volcano was the first.

I can also now see what you are referring to when you state 'carbon negative', it's just that this term didn't sound correct to me (especially as a layman). Like I said, all the definitions I looked at for this word stated a process which involves removing carbon. Whilst there are possibly more detailed definitions I didn't see, perhaps you can understand my confusion with the usage of those words in this context.

Ha so you are saying that planes being grounded is a good thing for your environmental crusade. Maybe you should go find a way to provoke volcanic activity? Ever consider that maybe if a plane cannot fly that there are going to be a lot of folks getting in their cars and making road trips? Not to mention the extra flights that will be made later on to make up for all those grounded during the eruptions?

So there goes your negative carbon theory. Other poster was right, you should get laid!

No. AGW denier myths simply do not die. That's why we have to create websites like Skeptical Science, to have a reference library for when some denier decides to raise the "temperature records are unreliable" myth from the dead, for example (this actually happened recently).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperatur...

If deniers would accept reality when their myths were debunked, they wouldn't have any arguments left to make. Then they'd have to accept the reality that humans are causing global warming, which their denial will not allow them to do.

Since words actually have meanings to me, I have no idea what you are talking about. Carbon negative? You do realize that volcanoes emit CO2 making them carbon "positive." Just because we emit more than volcanoes doesn't make them negative. That makes them less than us but still positive. Since I know you are a pretty bright guy, I must be missing something. I had a long day and my brain is nearly kaput.

Facts don't seem to deter deniers, in spite of the fact there is a detailed record of CO2 going back 60 years with record of a number of major volcano through the same period, Pinatubo being the strongest or those and no appreciable increase in CO2 associated with any of them, deniers continue to make the blatantly false claim that "one volcano is the equivalent of 100 years of human CO2 emissions".

Volcano certainly have an effect but it is much slower taking many 1000s of years, in fact if we actually had a real geologist here they would tell you that this long term buildup of CO2 from volcanoes is the most likely reason we emerged from the total freeze the Earth went into in the Cryogenian period, 850 million years ago. I see at least one denier here, asking for sources, how many times have we posted the USGS link stating current human emissions are 100x the volcanic emissions or they could simple look at the CO2 record, look at the spike in CO2 caused by Pinatubo, Oh wait! it didn't cause one.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php