2011-05-06 09:49:44Volcanoes - Time for disinformation is over
oslo

borchinfolab@gmail...
90.149.33.182

Inspired by dana (in Epic fail) I finally took the courage to write to the Natural history museum in Norway  which distributes false information on CO2 and volcanoes.

Article by google translate (as usual)

The false statement as follows:

CO 2. When the pressure drops in the magma at the onset, release dissolved gases free, so that when we take the cork from a champagne bottle. We can calculate that the volcanic eruption in Eldgjá in the year 934 must have released more than 15 times more CO 2 than we burn in one year, while the eruption of Laki in 6 months in 1783-1784 must have released more than 12 times more CO 2 than we burn in one year. Anyway there was no observed global warming due to vocanic eruption.

Oh. I did write to a volcano expert in Iceland to verify my claim (reagarding overstating co2-emissions from laki), and he confirmed by saying:

Preben, there is a rule of thumps that indicates that you get 14 MT CO2 out
of every km3 basaltic magma and similarly some 6,5-7,5MT SO2 out of same.
Thus Laki gave about 224 MT CO2 and some 104-122MT SO2. Depends on the
volume you use.

Hopefully I will get a positive response - media next ;-)

Segalstad is a well know denier of climate change by CO2 and publicly employed by the University of Oslo (27.700 studens).

Currently the university has about 27,700 students and employs about 6000 people.

2011-05-06 11:00:28
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

2009 total global CO2 emissions (in million metric tonnes): 30,313.248 (30.3 Gt or billion tonnes)

224 Mt/30,313 Mt = 0.74%

30,313/224 = 135 (mankind in 2009 emitted 135 times more CO2 than Laki)

The Netherlands by itself emits more CO2 yearly than did Laki

 

Denier math=Epic Fail2

2011-05-06 14:00:35
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

Good for you oslo.  Anytime we have a chance to correct misinformation we should go for it.

2011-05-06 17:10:14
oslo

borchinfolab@gmail...
90.149.33.182

I'll have a go at the public geological lexica as well, also provided by the same museum - if I get a response...

From GeoLeksi about CO2:

The small CO2 present in air and water is essential for the maintenance of life on Earth. It is life as gas plants use carbon dioxide in photosynthesis, where the gas is bound in organic compounds. For complete breakdown released all of it to air and water again. Studies of C14 by nuclear explosions in the atmosphere have shown that the orbital period (residence time) is approx. 5 years. The air that people breathe out, contains ca. 4 per cent CO2, and man alone breathe out more of this gas than that generated by the combustion of gasoline from all the cars in the world.

- Many have argued that hardly sufficient adequate scientific basis for claiming the CO2 target, and the political decisions may have been made without the geochemical understanding of how CO2 is developed and consumed in nature.


2011-05-07 10:55:56
oslo

borchinfolab@gmail...
90.149.33.182

The denier has replied - sorry for beeing so blunt.

Watch Segalstad on Youtube if you would like more information.

Here is the reply from Segalstad (author of the article) - automatic translate by google:

----

Thank you for your interest in the amount of CO2 that can be solved in the rock melts and how much that will be degassed as CO2 to the atmosphere by volcanic eruptions.

On our website you will also find a thorough explanation of this:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/np-m-119.pdf

Here you will see on page 12, below, that a mantle-derived melt can be dissolved as much as 8% by weight CO2. This is found by the experiments of scientists Eggler and Mysen, and confirmed by the findings of such rocks.

If you go to page 13, at the top, you see that experiments have shown that the lava coming out of the volcano can contain from 0.01 to 0.001 weight% CO2. That is to say that about. 99.99% of the CO2 in the melt from the mantle will be degassed into the atmosphere.

To most of the CO2 in the atmosphere has been formed. We see this example. in carbon isotopes in atmospheric CO2, which shows that a maximum of 4% of atmospheric CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels. More than 96% of atmospheric CO2 has a karbonisotopisk composition that is "natural", ie the equivalent CO2 from the earth and from degassing of bicarbonate dissolved in the ocean.

See, for example. in short form:
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/hawaii.pdf

The volumes of volcanic products have been designed for numerous volcanic eruptions. Here it is possible to calculate the approximate amount of CO2 that must have been dissolved in the melt and emitted to the atmosphere, based on the experimental results of Eggler & Mysen, and more. How has the numbers on the Web emerged.

Sincerely,
Tom W. Segalstad
Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology
Geological Museum, Natural History Museum, University of Oslo

---

I feel competent to write an answer to this nonsense, but appriciate any comments.

A rebuttal perhaps?

2011-05-07 11:17:31
oslo

borchinfolab@gmail...
90.149.33.182

To be correct - here is my original mail (minor corrections to google translate):

---

* On your website I read:

CO_2 .* When the pressure drops in the magma at the onset, release dissolved
free gases, such as when we take the cork from a champagne bottle. We can
calculate that the volcanic eruption in Eldgjá year 934 must have released more than 15
times more CO_2 than we burn in one year, while the eruption of Laki
for 6 months in 1783-1784 must have released more than 12 times more than CO_2
we burn in one year. Anyway observed no global
warming due. volcanic emissions.

How is this calculated?

We emit about 30 Gt CO2 in a year - is it the natural history
Museum assertion that the Laki released more than 15 times our annual emissions?

What research is this based on ?

For the record, I contacted a volcanologists on the Iceland to
check this claim - he writes:

- Preben, There is a rule of thump That indicates That You get 14 MT
CO2 out of everythin km3 basaltic magma and similarly from 6.5 to 7.5 MT SO2 something out
of same.
THUS Laki gift of about 224 MT CO2 and someting 104-122MT SO2. Depends on the
volume you use.

Will NHM correct their obvious errors provided in the article ?

---


2011-05-07 12:18:18
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.147.180.253

Wow!  This guy is a one-man denial machine!

 

In this Heartland ppt he uses his museum credentials - I wonder if his bosses know about that -

www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/PowerPoint/Tom_Segalstad.ppt

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=269

http://www.co2web.info/

http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htm

 

https://pub.needlebase.com/actions/visualizer/V2Visualizer.do?domain=AGW-Skepticism&thread=%4023919&typeId=9149585060559937605&render=List

2011-05-07 12:35:43
logicman

logicman_alf@yahoo.co...
86.147.180.253

oslo - I just looked again - the lexicon entry on CO2 appears to have been written by  Inge Bryhni.

 

Two deniers for the price of one?

2011-05-07 18:22:02
oslo

borchinfolab@gmail...
90.149.33.182

The lexi is indeed written by Inge Bryhni - full of false and partly political statements quite inapropriate for a public information service. Do you know him?

Segalstad is called "head of the Geology Museum" (it's the Natural History Museum) in many places, which is not correct (don't know if he has been), so he really should be taken down for dragging down the universitys public profile

I wrote him a reply and just restated my questions, as they wasn't answered in any way. Quite fun to have an answer directly from him!

2011-05-07 19:14:55
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.95

Also, he must know he's being an obfuscating idiot with the 4% from atmospheric measurements thing.

2011-05-07 19:45:46Segalstad replies
oslo

borchinfolab@gmail...
90.149.33.182

New reply from Segalstad:

---

The calculation method is not disputed. The same calculation method, which I have used, has been used by such Icelandic professor Haraldur Sigurdsson (eg. the thesis of the Palais & Sigurdsson, 1989: "Petro Logic evidence of volatile Emissions from major historic and pre-historic volcanic eruption. ").

It shows Haraldur Sigurdsson that there are enormous amounts of gas emitted from volcanoes, much more than we had earlier about the idea. The data supports previous work Lambs, who pointed out that volcanic eruptions have a significant impact on the global climate.

Academy as an institution can not take a position on every scientific information as their researchers, or others, come forward. Just as a newspaper can not take a position on each article as printed in it, including letters to the editor. In this country we have freedom of speech actually acc. Constitution § 100

To demand that divergent views, from the self or others think should not come forward, we call censorship. And to stifle other ways of seeing things, is something that will promote understanding and innovation.

I have, as a writer of my web article, chosen to make calculations based on results from experimental petrology, similar to the Icelandic Professor Haraldur Sigurdsson. From this I have presented the results. I also have in my previous answers given for the carbon isotopic evidence, which shows that it probably should be.

What you can like or dislike [This you can like or dislike]. But why do you want to break the Constitution and require censorship?

Professor Haraldur Sigurdsson is also the main editor of the authoritative encyclopedia "Encyclopedia of Volcanology", published by the international publisher Academic Press. Would you also that all copies of Professor Sigurdsson encyclopedia, where he writes things like, should be withdrawn over the world and burned at the stake? Then we would be inside the tanks [then we are on a path], which we thought we had put behind us in the last century?

2011-05-09 01:11:45
Hoskibui

hoskibui@gmail...
85.220.124.174

Hi Oslo

Haraldur Sigurðsson has a blog if you want to ask him about those numbers. See http://vulkan.blog.is  His email is haraldur@gso.uri.edu

Just explain the situation to him and he will correct it, if he has time - I´m sure.
 

2011-05-09 02:37:39
oslo

borchinfolab@gmail...
90.149.33.182

Thanks for that Hoskibui - I had something of that in mind (was thinking of contacting the other volcano expert I have contacted on Iceland, but contacting  Haraldur seems like a good idea).

2011-05-09 02:57:50
Hoskibui

hoskibui@gmail...
85.220.124.174

Still, if you have contact with other volcano expert then also contact him - you can never be sure if Haraldur has time to answer emails, he is old but he is extremely busy :)

2011-05-10 06:59:04
oslo

borchinfolab@gmail...
90.149.33.182

I have already sent an answer some 20 hours ago with reference to Encyclopedia of paleoclimatology and ancient environments, which states more or less the same as the scientist I have contacted in Iceland (Dr. Ármann Höskuldsson). I read quite a few articles this weekend of Haraldur and he seems like a very resonable person!

A copy of my mail was also sent to two other staff members (cc given by Segalstad, so I guess that's appropriate).

I'll let him answer this mail first, then I'll send a mail to Haraldur and Ármann to confirm the statement in Encyclopedia of paleoclimatology and ancient environments and to comment on the reply from Segalstad.

I'll write to the head of NHM if the communication doesn't change the article, then I'll write to the board if neccessary - I believe University of Oslo has an ethical board, so they will be next.

It might take some time, but it will hopefully be corrected :-)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to ask Haraldur to write an article on the Laki eruption and co2 emissions? I couldn't find it on his blog, but my icelandish is poor ;-) He writes very well in my opinion, so if the article is good, a cross post at SkS would be great!

2011-05-10 07:39:36
Hoskibui

hoskibui@gmail...
85.220.124.174

Yeah, Haraldurs posts are very good - didn´t find anything on Laki and CO2 emissions either. He has been on our list in loftslag.is to write a post for us. He is positive, but always a bit too busy - recently released his autobiography and he has been a consultant concerning movies and more. Here is a post about CO2 and volcanoes:

Hvað Kemur Mikið Koltvíoxíð upp í Eldgosum?

One paragraph in english:

...there is now a pretty good estimate of the total emission of carbon dioxide from all volcanoes, both on land and at sea. It is now estimated at between 130 to 250 million tons of carbon dioxide per year worldwide. The contribution of volcanoes are therefore only 1/120 to 1/230 of total emissions of carbon dioxide on Earth, or well less than one percent. So it is not possible to blame climate change on volcanic eruptions, at least not now. However, large explosive eruptions can cause cooling of the earth, but that is another story. 

 

I guess one of the best expert here in Iceland on CO2 and geology is Sigurður Reynir Gíslason. You can try him if all else fails.

 

P.S. another email that Haraldur might answer: safn@eldfjallasafn.is

2011-05-10 07:48:13
oslo

borchinfolab@gmail...
90.149.33.182

Thanks for the paragraph - already found it, and it was in my last mail to Segalstad and NHM :-)

My icelandish is getting better and better (with a little help from google translate)..

2011-05-13 06:45:21
oslo

borchinfolab@gmail...
90.149.33.182

No answer from Segalstad or NHM so far, so I have written an e-mail to Haraldur to comment on the claims made by Segalstad:

- The calculation method is not disputed. The same calculation method, which I have used, has been used by such Icelandic professor Haraldur Sigurdsson (eg. the thesis of the Palais & Sigurdsson, 1989: "Petro Logic evidence of volatile Emissions from major historic and pre-historic volcanic eruption. ").

- It shows Haraldur Sigurdsson that there are enormous amounts of gas emitted from volcanoes, much more than we had earlier about the idea. The data supports previous work Lambs, who pointed out that volcanic eruptions have a significant impact on the global climate.

I have asked Haraldur to comment on the claims made by Segalstad, that Segalstad has based his calculations on the publications by Haraldur. I have also asked if Haraldur would like to write an article on the Laki eruption.

Hopefully Haraldur will make a comment and even a blog post (perhaps wishful thinking) - I'll take it from there...

2011-05-13 17:58:29
oslo

borchinfolab@gmail...
90.149.33.182

I got a quick reply from Haraldur, confirming the calculations done by others in this area.

New mail sent to Segalstad and requesting that the article is corrected to comply with literature and expertise in the area. Quite sure he will not correct his article, so I assured him that I will follow up the case with the board or management of the museum.

Asked Haraldur (again) very nicely if he would to a blog post on the Laki eruption...

2011-05-13 23:14:06
oslo

borchinfolab@gmail...
90.149.33.182

Short answer from Haraldur regarding writing an article on Iceland eruptions (mentioned a possible cross post at SkS):

- Yes,  I will consider this. There is so much trash out there on the web, and misleading statements.

Well said ;-)