EnviroLink Forum

Any thoughts on this study which shows that strong natural sources of CO2 emissions from geological sources?

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2 ... 1991.shtml

The extract of the study you linked does not seem aimed at the layperson (What is a NECB estimate? It seems to assume that the reader would know that.) however I think its safe to say the rise in CO2 levels since the industrial revolution is not due to geological sources.

Geologic emission are well known, but the paper is correct in that such sources would make the estimates for a particular region more difficult.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Thanks guys for your input.

I would agree that most of the increase in CO2 is probably due to anthropogenic sources.

don`t forget the loss of carbon sinks such as desert growth and loss of tree mass and a warmer ocean not holding as much of the gases that water absorbs. I found it funny that they use the term "geological sources" when that is what petrochemicals are.

Snowy,

I think I will need you to tell me if this is the point:-

That the amount of CO2 produced naturally is often higher than previously thought.

That this means that the increase in CO2 could be due to other things than industry and fossil fuel use, although probably not.

That since there is this ability of geology to produce lots of CO2 then nature must be used to the occaisional increase in the stuff.

Is that right????

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

The consistent percentage of average annual volcanic emissions of CO2 are 1/140th of the total. Of the other "natural" CO2 sources, termites are the greatest at about 1/100th. Human HGHG emissions account for from 75% to 97% of emissions. The study only "confounds" on the local level.
The long term natural CO2 output was generally kept in check by the annual absorption by trees, and plankton, along with other vegetation and natural sinks. It is in the little 3ppm up and down seasonal CO2 variation.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

I haven't read the source yet, but have got the summation from reading the posts. WHat I have been conserned about with our robust emissions of co2 is that we are vulnerable to the lag effect of earth emitted co2 the same as that gave us the Holocene. The oceans and land will emit more co2 over time just as the 800 year lag of co2.

I tend to think this is already set in motion 800 to 1000 years out. In a sense we may have forced our future generations to pull co2 from the atmosphere and bury it for protection 10 centuries out.