Timothy Birdnow

Here is an interesting bit of science; a huge pool of carbonate melt in the Earth's upper mantle shows that there is a massive amount of subterranean carbon.

According to the article:

"Scientists using the world's largest array of seismic sensors found a huge area of melting carbon covering 1.8 million km2 (684 000 mi2), 350 km (217.5 miles) beneath the Western US. The discovery challenges accepted the understanding of how much carbon the Earth contains and suggests it is much more than previously understood."

[...]


"Under the western US is a huge underground partially-molten reservoir of liquid carbonate. It is a result of one of the tectonic plates of the Pacific Ocean forced underneath the western USA, undergoing partial melting thanks to gasses like CO2 and H2O contained in the minerals dissolved in it.”

As a result of this study, scientists now understand the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s upper mantle may be up to 100 trillion metric tons. In comparison, the US Environmental Protection Agency estimates the global carbon emission in 2011 was nearly 10 billion metric tons – a tiny amount in comparison. The deep carbon reservoir discovered by Dr. Hier-Majumder will eventually make its way to the surface through volcanic eruptions, and contribute to climate change albeit very slowly."

End excerpts.

We really shouldn't be surprised; carbon is ubiquitous in the solar system, and a casual study of Venus (a planet similar to our own in some ways) shows massive amounts of carbon is trappped underground (and in the Venusian atmosphere). The differences between Earth and Venus can be studied to better understand both planets and why Earth is so hospitable and Venus, well, is worse than Detroit.

The paper's abstract goes on to say that this region of partial melt is a result of volatiles acting on the sequestered carbon.

Which leads us to the obvious question; how much carbon in the Earth's atmosphere is a result of volcanic release and outgassing as opposed to human industrial emissions? Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (from 2 to four molecules per every ten thousand molecules of air; a trace amount) has been assumed to be a result of industrial emissions, but is it really? Is it possible that we have been grossly underestimating the amounts of carbon dioxide being released from inside the Earth?

But, but, but, why is it INCREASING? Surely that is caused by industrial emissions!

Perhaps, but perhaps it has to do with changing planetary conditions. Look, the Earth doesn't sit still. It rotates, and orbits the Sun. It is constantly in different aspects to other gravitational bodies (like Jupiter). It wobbles in different ways - the yearly wobble gives us seasons, and the longer term wobbles give us Milankovich Cycles, which govern the comings and goings of ice ages and the like. We only understand what any of these cycles do on the Earth's surface, but have never really had a way to study the planet's interior. I suspect Milankovich Cycles change the planet's interior in many and varied ways.

And let us not forget magnetic effects. We are only now coming to understand the role of magnetism in the solar system, and there is evidence the planets are all subject to magnetic effects. Those effects seem to be quite powerful, sometimes far more than one would expect from a straightforward look at the overall system.

The Earth's magnetic field is currently in the process of shifting it's poles. It has grown quite feeble in recent years and many scientists think a shift is immanent. That would mean magnetic north would be in Antarctica and magnetic south somewhere in the Arctic. Why is it changing now?

Who knows; it could tie in with magnetic fields emitted by the Sun. But one thing is certain; if the poles are shifting in polarity there is bound to be some stirring up of the interior of the planet. And such stirring will mean more outgassing, just as food in a pot outgasses water vapor when stirred. One wonders if this big pool of subterranean carbon fondue is indicative of an increase in outgassing.

The fact is, we don't really know. Although the science establishment wants us to believe they know these things, the reality is most of their estimates on planetary outgassing and the like are statistical in nature, based on computer models. Nobody actually measures this stuff. They can't; the world is too big. So they assume things based on what they have measured, and work with theoretical models to adjust it as they think necessary. If the models are wrong then the final product is wrong; garbage in, garbage out.

So we really don't know WHY atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing. I would further say we really don't know how much it is at all; in the U.S. it is determined almost entirely by testing the air at Mauna Kea observatory, which sits on the edge of an active volcanoe. There are also satellite imaging, and some other, lesser known sources, but one wonders if we are getting a true picture of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Perhaps more of it is outgassing than we thought. Clearly there is more carbon in the Earth than we believed.

Another point to ponder here; as Thomas Lifson points out at American Thinker, this discovery buttresses the Russian theory that oil is abiotic and not a "fossil fuel" at all. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/02/warmists_convert_a_stunning_scientific_discovery_into_a_sign_of_looming_armageddon.html

That will mean there will never be peak oil, or not until the Earth is mined to the point that we can dismantle the planet. Of course, we wouldn't want to use that much oil, because it would indeed over pollute the atmosphere, but we are far, far from that. It is unquestionable that by the time we would reach such a point we will either be technologically beyond oil or in civilizational collapse, so what the heck!

In conclusion, I have to point out that the Earth has been around a long, long time and atmospheric carbon dioxide has been much higher and during periods much colder than now. There really is no proof of global warming save in computer models, models that lack flexibility. Arrhenius was right about the basics of this, but calculations for one system ofemsten do not work for another. Shoot, scientists have been trying for decades to unify the four fundamental forces of nature, with only minor success. You can't simply swap systems.

Planets are not finished products but work in progress. We need to understand that simple fact.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1101 words, total size 7 kb.