I was trying to find out the volcano equivalent of human CO2. Maybe a bit simplistic, but....
I found this stuff out on the web. Anyone have any more definite information on which is the bigger contributer?

HUMAN VOLCANO
"Human CO2 output is like a gigantic volcano, producing 100 times the natural background emission of all the world?s volcanoes put together."
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~davidc/ATMS211/Lecture30-slides-PDF.pdf

&
"It would take 20,000 Kilauea volcanoes to equal man's output of CO2."
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp5/question1794.html

& contradicting this viewpoint is:
"70% of all CO2 is produced naturally (volcano, termites, etal)."
Don't have link, but it was a blog that ended with: "Environmental wackos are not called wackos for nothing."

~Samwik

Hmmm... A blog vs. information from accredited universities. Which to believe... which to believe...

Let's do the Fermi problem: 6 billion people, 2000 kcal/day basal metabolism, 6.0292 kcal/g CO2 enthalpy of combustion.

(6x10^9)(2000 kcal/day)(365.244 days/yr)/(6.0292 kcal/g CO2)(1 tonne/10^6 grams) = 727 million tonnes CO2/year

As Uncle Al has said all along, the simple solution to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is to kill 4 billion Third World parasites. The economic route to the desirable solution is to merely stop sending charity and let their gods enjoy a robust giggle.

Or, stop wildfires. Worldwide fires conservatively annually emit 72.81 billion metric tonnes of CO2 - the equivalent of burning 100% of 2006 recovered petroleum in 337 times,

http://www.mazepath.com./uncleal/tuned.htm

Which has been shown to be a bad argument. Burned forrests are CO2 sinks. You have been repeatedly reminded of this fact, and you have yet to have a substantial counterargument.

Again, why keep posting the same incorrect information?

Uncle Al wrote:
"As Uncle Al has said all along, the simple solution to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is to kill 4 billion Third World parasites."

If you think this the best solution: Then lead by example.

Samwik:

The following is a direct quote:

?Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities. Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!?

from the following link:

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

However, the following quote adds another context:

?Approximately 500 billion tons of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide are added to the atmosphere each day, of which 98 percent is naturally produced. In other words, only 2 percent is anthropogenic.?

from the following site:

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=35979&page=3

And finally, here is a link to a paper in respect
to volcanic contribution overall:

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/programmes/landres/segs/downloads/VolcanicContributions.pdf

Thanks, I'm gonna get out my calculator!
~Samwik

Uncle Al wrote:

"As Uncle Al has said all along, the simple solution to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is to kill 4 billion Third World parasites. The economic route to the desirable solution is to merely stop sending charity and let their gods enjoy a robust giggle."

No Al. People in the Third World use far fewer resources and cause less pollution per person than those in The West. It would be more economical to kill just 1 billion parasites from The West. Who's going to volunteer to be first? Names please.

Seriously, most of the human-caused environmental problems are simply the result of there being too many of us. Can anyone think of a problem that woulndn't be more easily solved if there were fewer of us?

That's what I suggested to Al. That if he truly believed in his idea ... he should lead by example.

He truly believes in his idea--but his idea is to attract attention to Uncle Al. Note the number of responses to what is basically two of his already old troll subjects (forest fires and reducing the population).

Forest fires? Good or bad?
Anyway, I finally figured out Metric tonnes = Mega grams -I think?

Anyone know the conversion for Gigatonnes of Carbon vs. Metric tonnes of CO2?
~Samwik

J. Arthur God wrote re. Uncle Al:

"what is basically two of his already old troll subjects (forest fires and reducing the population)."

Not unrelated. When I lived in Australia the comment by local bushfire brigde fire fighters: "There are three main causes of bushfires, these are men, women and children." I presume it's the same elsewhere.

I just ran into this answer while surfing. Nice to see a confirmatin of what I figured must be true.
Now how about petagrammes?

Q. Why do some estimates of CO2 emissions seem to be about 3 1/2 times as large as others?

A. When looking at CO2 emissions estimates, it is important to look at the units in which they are expressed. The numbers are sometimes expressed as mass of CO2 but are listed in all of our estimates only in terms of the mass of the C (carbon). Because C cycles through the atmosphere, oceans, plants, fuels, etc. and changes the ways in which it is combined with other elements, it is often easier to keep track only of the flows of carbon. Emissions expressed in units of C can be easily converted to emissions in CO2 units by adjusting for the mass of the attached oxygen atoms, that is by multiplying by the ratios of the molecular weights, 44/12, or 3.67. [GM]

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

~samwik

P.S.
Should this be on the climate forum? That was my original intent.
~S