Bishop Hill A wrinkle in the carbon budget
Nov 18, 2013 Climate: carbon budget 
Since I read about it a few years back, I've been intrigued by Ian Plimer's suggestion that subsea volcanoes may be emitting very large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, thus being responsible for a (presumably) significant proportion of the rise in atmospheric concentrations. This idea has been broadly poo-poohed by mainstream scientivists because of lack of evidence, although the idea that one should assume a figure close to zero because we didn't know what was going on at the bottom of the oceans was never one that gave me a warm feeling.
Over the weekend Anthony Watts described an interesting new study which has put a new and much higher estimate on just how much carbon dioxide is being emitted in this way.
We now know that the CO2 released during volcanic eruptions is almost insignificant compared with what happens after the camera crews get bored. The emissions that really matter are concealed. The silent, silvery plumes which are currently winding their way skyward above the 150 or so active volcanoes on our planet also carry with them the bulk of its carbon dioxide. Their coughing fits might catch the eye — but in between tantrums, the steady breathing of volcanoes quietly sheds upwards of a quarter of a billion tons of CO2 every year.
The quantities of carbon dioxide involved are still relatively small with respect to anthropogenic emissions, but the increase over earlier estimates is startling. Given how little we know about the ocean depths, this may not be the end of the story.
Anthony's article is here.
Reader Comments (39)
So let me see if I've got this right. Catastrophilics can accept that the catastrophic heat no one can detect is some how mysteriously being absorbed by the deep ocean WITHOUT any evidence to back that up YET scream blue murder about volcanoes spewing Co2 out because there is no evidence???
Mailmab
The other one that is interesting reported on watts up is how active volcanoes could be one of the causes of the West Antarctic ice melt.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/17/volcano-discovered-smoldering-under-a-kilometer-of-ice-in-west-antarctica/
That was another idea rubbished just a year or so back
The idea (or is it 'ideation'?) that there is a carbon cycle similar to the water cycle is fallacious. Nobody, not on our side, not on theirs, has a clue what the quantities or timescales are. Nobody has a good model of the sources and sinks and their variation over time or their response to changes elsewhere. Is anybody out there with a measuring device, or is this all done in Fortran?
@Mailman
...So let me see if I've got this right. Catastrophilics can accept that the catastrophic heat no one can detect is some how mysteriously being absorbed by the deep ocean WITHOUT any evidence to back that up YET scream blue murder about volcanoes spewing Co2 out because there is no evidence???..
And that, in a nutshell, is the Precautionary Principle...
So what to do? Concrete over all volcanoes?
Mailman;
The missing heat has been found in the Arctic!
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exposed-the-myth-of-the-global-warming-pause-8945607.html
For some reason, this prompted this corrupted lyric to pop into my head;
They seek heat here, they seek heat there
In ocean deep and Arctic lair
Everywhere the carbonetian army marches on
Each one a dedicated follower of fascism.
With apologies to Ray Davies and all who read this far :)
Ssat,
I wish people wouldn't just leave things lying around like that. You never know who might find these things these days!!!
Regards
Mailman
BTW Oil in Scotland .. if there is more new oil in Scottish waters ..then there'd be quite a lot of pressure to keep stum until after the independence referendum
rhoda:
"Nobody has a good model of the sources and sinks ..."
Nobody has a good model.
Period.
There was a theory, some years back, that gaseous releases from ocean depths could/had sunk ships. The water and gas mix that they passed through was less dense which affected their hull immersion and stability with fast and catastrophic results. At the time, subsiding methane clathrates were considered the culprit but any gas would do.
Rhoda,
Whatever the CO2 cycle is, and I don't think there is one over geological periods, it doesn't seem to affect climate in any noticeable way. I have seen this published many times on the internet and may even have seen it in printed media shows little correlation and a general falling trend in CO2 content of the atmosphere. Worrying really.
CO2 during last 600 million years
On the other hand, there seems to be no evidence that volcanic activity over the last 100 years has been any greater than in the previous 1000.
Dodgy Geezer: I prefer Matt Ridley's definition of the Precautionary Principle: It is NOT doing something for the first time.
Stewgreen: If there really is lots more oil to come from 'Scottish' waters, I do hope it has to be fracked in order to get it out...and that Salmond will stick to his principles of no fracking. :-)
ssat
Here be Volcanoes...
Devil's Sea
Think of it this way, over the last 800 Ky the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been pretty steady, about 240-290 ppm. call it 720 Gt in the atmosphere and 38,000 Gt in the oceans. The annual input into the ecosystem has to match, over time, the rate of carbon mineralization; influx equals efflux. Now, assume that the amount of CO2 per year, from volcanoes, is constant, the influx into the system is zero order.
The efflux rate, the rate of mineralization, must match the rate of input, and cannot be zero order, that is fixed; as small changes in volcanic input, would have a big effect on the total level of CO2 in the ecosystem. So efflux, as mineralization, must be at least first order; as CO2 rises, he rate that CO2 is mineralized must increase. The obvious explanation is that when atmospheric CO2 rises, the biotic productivity of the oceans increase, more dead organic matter falls to the bottom, and is trapped by sediments.
The Bern model is very poor at modeling biological mineraliation, and so this is why it cannot model the rate of increasing atmospheric CO2, even when the amounts of fossil fuels burnt are known
I am certainly not convinced that the aggregate activity of volcanic out-gassing can be modelled or measured with sufficient accuracy. And the occurrence of irregular but significant events is, well, currently not very predictable, to say the least.
The ocean may well smooth out peaks and troughs of submarine contributions, but it doesn't seem like like a good argument that resultant observed atmospheric changes must be smooth/continuous either in the future or the past. Sudden large contributions in source regions won't have the same effects as they would in sink regions.
And the field seems to be riven with calculations based on, often unstated, assumptions of equilibrium conditions (Henry's Law, for one example). These are manifestly incorrect in systems which are not even in a steady state, never mind equilibrium.
The missing link that is being completely ignored in past climate is atmospheric pressure. Any notion that for the last 600 million years earth’s atmosphere has been 1 bar is bonkers when looking at the evidence. We all agree I hope that evidence that CO2 is the major climate driver via its radiative properties is very thin and probably wrong, but CO2 and water are the major gases to come out of Volcanoes and CO2 the only one able to replenish our atmosphere. The Irony is CO2 may yet turn out to be the most influential atmospheric gas in earth’s surface temperature, but NOT for the reasons currently thought.
99.9% of life uses CO2 and over time has much of it has been sequestered into Dolomite and Limestone; perhaps as much as 35 to 45 bars worth atmospheric pressure equivalent. We know that life was more vigorous in the past and it doesn't take much understanding to realise that higher atmospheric pressure explains most of the anomalies surrounding the large size of the dinosaurs far more easily that all the complicated explanations that palaeontologists come up with these days so that climate scientists can persist with the absurd notion the atmosphere has always been one bar. Climate sciences insistence that the atmosphere has been 1 bar pressure “forever” is grossly distorting all manner of research. If it wasn't such a tragedy for science it would be comical.
When CO2 is vented in volcanoes in the deep ocean some dissolves and some turns to a liquid and sinks forming large pools of liquid CO2. High pressure makes everything behave differently. At low pressure CO2 goes from solid to gas as we know, and I believe that water/ice does the same thing on Mars at even lower atmospheric pressures than we have on earth. So many things could be explained if only climate scientists could take off the blinkers, ditch the computer models and get out and look at the physical evidence. Radical I know but required none the less
When our atmoshere is at a higher pressure more CO2 will di
jamesp: Here be Volcanoes...
Ahrr jim lad
Completely off topic, but I can't find any posts about the paper reported in the Independent today claiming no pause in GW.
The comment I just left at WUWT on this subject:
"If we assume, as we should, that volcanic activity, above and below the ocean surface, has been more or less stable over periods of centuries and millennia, then the steady annual rise of CO2 from about 300 ppm about 150 years ago to nearly 400 ppm today (daily values seen in Anthony’s climate widget) is due to something other than volcanos — specifically, the increase in emissions from human economic activities.
Let’s not try to convince ourselves otherwise. The crucial issues with CO2 have to do with climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2, with the consequences of CO2 increases (a function of climate sensitivity), and to discerning what the appropriate responses should be as well as their time frame. There is plenty of debate, reasonable debate, about whether western governments are impoverishing their peoples with their highly expensive renewable energy policies. See Bishop Hill’s discussion Nov. 17:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/11/17/sober-scary.html"
I don't have a URL link, but this paper documents an estimated 3 million submarine volcanoes, seamounts and hydrothermal vents exuding CO2 into the oceans. This far outweighs anything that comes from subaerial volcanoes.
The amount of carbon dioxide that the USGS estimated from volcanoes by Gerlach 1991 is wrong, and only tested 3 submarine systems. However it's this wrong outdated estimate that informs the IPCC numbers.
Hillier, J. K., & Watts, A. B., 2007, "Global distribution of seamounts from ship- track bathymetry data", Geophysical. Research. Letters, Vol. 34, L13304, doi:10.1029/2007GL029874
DpcMartyn: "Think of it this way, over the last 800 Ky the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been pretty steady, about 240-290 ppm."
The Eemian started at 190, rose to about 290 and then the temperature started to fall along with CO2. And then the Eemian ended.
A simple theory. Cold water holds more CO2. Milankovich warming cycle occurs and warms the atmosphere and eventually the ocean leading to outgassing more CO2. and then the Milankovich warming cycles ends so the outgassing stops. And CO2 drops.
CO2 is the pink line:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/eemian.html
DocMartyn says:
"The obvious explanation is that when atmospheric CO2 rises, the biotic productivity of the oceans increase, more dead organic matter falls to the bottom, and is trapped by sediments."
Under current oceanographic conditions that mechanism only works in a few small areas, particularly the Black Sea. Everywhere else organic matter is consumed on its way to the bottom, or by detritus feeders on the bottom and converted to CO2. The mechanism You describe has been very important for drawing down CO2 during OAE:s (Ocean Anoxic Events) and depositing it as organics-rich shales. However it only works when oceans are warm with sluggish circulation, or with a low-salinity surface layer that prevents circulation (like in the Black Sea) with the vigorous thermo-haline circulation that has prevailed at least since the Miocene it is very minor.
On the back of mikegeo's post.
Marie Tharp and Bruce Heezen's seafloor map can be seen here;
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/oceans.htm
Scroll down to near the end. I have the original on my wall and it remains forever fascinating. Note also the coastline of Greenland: somewhat different to atlas versions. The map and author contributed greatly to the acceptance of plate tectonic theory.
Actually CO2 produced by underwater volcanoes is very unlikely to reach the surface except in very shallow waters. It will be absorbed by the water long before reaching the surface.
An example that shows just how fast CO2 is absorbed by water:
One of the weaknesses of torpedoes up through WW2 was that they left a white bubble track that was visible up to half a mile away, and often gave ships time to make an evasive maneuver. The bubble track was from to the exhaust of the torpedo powerplant which was essentially just a very strong and compact internal combustion engine running on hydrocarbon with compressed air as oxidant.
However in the thirties the Japanese Navy developed their most powerful “secret weapon” the Type 93 “Long Lance” torpedo. This, in addition to being superior to other torpedoes in practically every way, had a particularly deadly characteristic. It was invisible. It didn’t produce any track at all. The first sign of an attack was usually the explosion when it hit the target.
This was because it used oxygen rather than compressed air as an oxidant. The exhaust therefore consisted only of water vapour and CO2. These however were produced in large quantities and spewed out in the ocean at a temperature of several hundred degrees, but instantly dissolved in the water. The bubble track left by all other torpedoes consisted of nitrogen which is much less soluble in water than CO2.
Is it reasonable to assume that all the under sea volcanoes emit at a constant rate? Probably not. So the CO2 emission of, some say as many as a 100,000 volcanoes varies as substantially as the over see volcanoes than CO2 in the sea and the atmosphere varies substantially without human interference.
Actually CO2 produced by underwater volcanoes is very unlikely to reach the surface except in very shallow waters
-----------------------
tty, Does that not depend on the direction of movement of the water, as well as mixing and thermo-chemical parameters? I can certainly accept that it will dissolve locally first. But if that water is in an up-welling region then it seems it could still ultimately be vented at the surface (obviously dependent on local salinity/temperature/pH/wind-speed values, with or without a thermal and/or geochemical impetus from the volcanic activity itself).
Further to DocMartyn's comments about the vertical flux of organic carbon, what about the inorganic carbon? I have read that some coccolithophores increase the size of their carbonate exoskeleton under higher concentrations of inorganic carbonate/bicarbonate/CO2. Would this lead to significant (and non-linear) increases of the rate of inorganic CO2 sequestration (and, tangentially, how much organic carbon does the inorganic skeleton carry downwards with it under gravity?)
"Discharge of volcanic gases in the marine environment can lead to local perturbations in ocean acidity, with consequences for biological communities and the potential for hazards related to depressurization and release of gases at the surface. Numerous hydrothermal vents in the crater of Kolumbo submarine volcano (Aegean Sea) are discharging virtually pure gaseous CO2 together with clear fluids at temperatures up to 220 °C.
Acoustic imaging of the ascending bubbles suggests that the gas is being dissolved into seawater within ∼10 m above the crater floor (500 m below sea level).
Dissolution of the gas likely causes local increases in water density that result in sequestration of CO2 within the enclosed crater, and the accumulation of acidic seawater. Lack of macrofauna at the Kolumbo hydrothermal vents, occurrence of carbonate-poor sediment in the crater, and pH values as low as 5.0 in recovered water samples point to acidic conditions within the crater.
Buildup of CO2-rich water in the bowl-shaped crater of Kolumbo may be producing conditions analogous to some African volcanic lakes (Lake Monoun and Lake Nyos, Cameroon) where overturn of gas-rich bottom waters led to abrupt releases of CO2 at the surface.
A minimum estimate of 2.0 × 10^5 m3 (STP) of excess CO2 may currently exist in the bottom 10 m of the Kolumbo crater."
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/41/9/1035
Fascinating topic:
"Cataloguing how much CO2 gas is coming out of the world’s volcanoes is an important part of this puzzle. But in order to understand the contribution of volcanoes to the geological carbon cycle, we need to know not only the amount of CO2 being emitted but also where all this carbon is coming from. CO2 in volcanic gases can originate from a number of sources, including the Earth’s mantle, sedimentary rocks “recycled” from the crust into the mantle at subduction zones (where one tectonic plate sinks beneath another), or from rocks such as limestone in the Earth’s crust when hot magma pushes its way through it to the surface [2]."
"...about two thirds of the CO2 emitted was from magma sitting below the volcano. Variations in carbon isotopes during the period of unrest [4] suggest that release from shallow crustal limestone contributes significantly to the other third of the carbon emissions."
http://deepcarbon.net/content/sniffing-out-sources-volcanic-carbon-dioxide
PeterMG: high atmospheric pressure explain the hot Devonian period - increased lapse rate warming**.
This continued into the carboniferous but the new symbiotic chloroplasts allowed the CO2 to be converted to O2. Half way through, the temperature fell, possibly the result of increased evapotranspiration. The 10 ft coal seams were originally 3000 ft of organic matter
The end came about because bacteria developed which could consume lignin. The reduction of plant life probaby led to decreased evapotranspirationn so temperatures rose so only fungi could live in the tropical land.
Nov 18, 2013 at 8:42 AM | Mailman
=================================
Mailman - the ability to hold contradictory views at the same time is an essential weapon of the Progressive Liberal.
See here :- http://thepeoplescube.com/images/Brain_Socialist_600.png
Actually CO2 produced by underwater volcanoes is very unlikely to reach the surface except in very shallow waters
-----------------------
Actually around the vents you will find the water is saturated with CO2 and especially in the deep vents the CO2 turns liquid under the extreme pressure and because it is a heavier molecule the liquid CO2 form pools in the deep ocean. Huge amounts beyond our current understanding are thought to be in these pools (lakes) This CO2 often requires an event to release it and it is conceivable that enough could be dislodged by an eruption or seismic event to have a significant effect on atmospheric pressure. This rise in pressure then has a knock on effect to all manner of things including the boiling point of water. If science would only engage its brain we could move on. But one thing is for sure we can never burn our hydrocarbon fuels fast enough to do what one large deep water volcano could do in minutes.
@ Jonathan Bagley 3:00PM
Judith Curry discusses the new surface temp paper here;
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/13/uncertainty-in-sst-measurements-and-data-sets/
Bruce, take the numbers 750 Gt in the atmosphere and 38,000 in the oceans; 0.26 gigaton preferred estimate for annual global volcanic CO2 emissions.
So, replacement of the whole biospheric carbon takes 150,000 years; during the last 800 Ky the total carbon in the atmosphere and oceans was replaced more than 5 times, but the oceans and atmospheric carbon was pretty stable.
This is a classical steady state situation, the level of CO2 in the biosphere depends on the biotic productivity, the more productive, the more the CO2 is mineralized.
The pre-Industrial rate of mineralization was the same as the volcanic input, 0.26 gigaton/pa, or about 0.5% of the total carbon flux through the marine biosystem, 5 GtC pa
Does that mean that CO2 levels in ice cores could be compromised?
Mikael Hart says:
"Does that not depend on the direction of movement of the water, as well as mixing and thermo-chemical parameters? I can certainly accept that it will dissolve locally first. But if that water is in an up-welling region then it seems it could still ultimately be vented at the surface (obviously dependent on local salinity/temperature/pH/wind-speed values, with or without a thermal and/or geochemical impetus from the volcanic activity itself)."
Certainly, but the thermohaline circulation (that drives most upwelling) is slow, with a turnover time on the order of 10^3 years, and most upwelling areas are far from mid-oceanic ridges where most volcanism occurs. It is true that there is a lot of CO2 in upwelling water, presumably both from biologic (mostly) and volcanic activity. As a matter of fact most scare stories about the effect of ocean "acidification" turn out to be from upwelling areas where the excess CO2 is most definitely not of human origin. Particularly in areas where upwelling is unstable or intermittent changes in CO2 cancentration can be large and abrupt enough to severely stress some organisms (though upwelling areas are of course the biologically richest parts of the ocean due to the presence of abundant dissolved nutrients and CO2).
Another major wrinkle in the carbon budget is that freshwater systems are much bigger players in the carbon budget than the climatocracy has considered. Check out limnology.
http://hanson.limnology.wisc.edu/
http://lter.limnology.wisc.edu/research/research_highlight/integrating-surface-waters-regional-carbon-budget
Something like *50%* of the carbon budget in the relatively tiny freshwater systems.
And then add soils.
Climatolgists are little better than medieval superstitious scholars, when one starts to study their workings critically.
@hunter As I walked through Italy in south Tuscany I came across an area of huge great CO2 springs pumping out CO2 24 hours/day.So 2 years ago sent my question to BBC Homeplanet
..the panel ..just said "no, no insignificant compared compared to man" ..yet gave no justification for their certainty
- unsatisfied I made some checks and indeed found the number , so sent back an email..It was ignored, the prog had moved on
@Snotrocket that's brilliant
- "Salmond's Dilemma" large amounts of new hydrocarbons found in Scotland,
but the only way Green Alex can get to it is by fracking.
Hey hey hey
"Salmond's Dilemma #2" Scotland becomes independent under King Salmond I,
but then finds he's got an electricity industry with no English to pay the windfarm subsidies.
- So he ends up with the price of electricity being much more expensive than the price in England.
- Wasn't Salmond happy about Grangemouth being closed,
so Scotland can be poor, but saving the world from CO2 "pollution" ?