Polarizing Fact – Super Facts

Without the Burning of Fossil Fuels Earth would be cooling

Superfact 140: Naturally occurring climate change caused by Earth’s orbital cycles (Milankovitch cycles) would currently result in a slight long-term cooling trend. Other natural causes of climate change such as solar activity, volcanic trends, and other sources of carbon emissions do not increase Earth’s average global temperature. In addition, reductions in Ozone depleting gases have a cooling effect. Our fossil fuel emissions are the cause for the current sharp increase global temperature as well as for it not getting colder.

The graph shows the temperature since the last ice age. There is a maximum temperature about 6,000 years ago, then a cooling and then a sharp uptick in temperature. | Without the Burning of Fossil Fuels Earth would be cooling — Global temperature from 20,000 BCE until now. Notice the Holocene Thermal Maximum around 6,000 years ago and the relatively stable temperature during the last 10,000 years, coinciding with the development of human civilization. Pay special attention to the sudden sharp increase in average global temperature at the end.

The sharp spike in global average temperatures towards the right side of the graph above is caused by us humans, chiefly by our burning of fossil fuels. However, the rest of the graph corresponds to natural causes of climate change. The wild swings in the average global temperature during the ice ages are chiefly caused by Earth’s orbital cycles, the so called Milankovitch cycles. <<Link-1>> There are three main Milankovitch cycles:

Changes in Earth’s orbital eccentricity, with 100,000 year cycles.
Changes in obliquity or axial tilt, with a 41,000 year cycle.
Axial precession or wobble, with a 26,000 year cycle.

Three illustrated orbital cycles. On the left orbital eccentricity, in the middle is the axial tilt and on the right axial precession. — Illustration of Milankovitch cycles from MIT’s Climate Primer.

The Milankovitch cycles cool Earth, and the sun, climate oscillations and ocean currents, volcanoes and emissions part of the carbon cycle do not cause any significant global warming in the long run. In addition, reductions in Ozone depleting gases have a cooling effect and so does our emissions of aerosols. In other words, if it weren’t for our carbon emissions Earth would be getting colder. I believe this is a surprising and important fact and therefore a super fact.

Milankovitch Cycles

Several scientists, astronomers and organizations around the world keep track of the orbital cycles including NASA, NOAA, etc. The Milankovitch cycles explain the ice ages, but these cycles are too long to explain the recent one or two century spike in average global temperatures. Furthermore, the Milankovitch cycles would currently slowly cool the atmosphere not warming it.

The graph shows wild swings over the last 150,000 years and then a very sharp uptick at the end. | Without the Burning of Fossil Fuels Earth would be cooling — Temperature record for the last 150,000 years. Orbital cycles are the main cause for these swings but not the temperature spike at the end. This picture is taken from this article.

In addition, different causes for climate change leave behind different fingerprints in how the heat is distributed across time, seasons, atmospheric layers, and geography. The “fingerprint” of the current warming is that of greenhouse gases being the cause for it and not orbital cycles. For example, the upper atmosphere is cooling an effect caused by the “blanket effect” caused by greenhouse gases. You can read more about how the current rapid global warming is different from past ice age temperature swings here.

To read more about the Milankovitch cycles click here.

The Sun Does Not Contribute to Global Warming

The sun cannot explain the average increase in global warming either. According to data from NASA, solar energy output has shown no net increase since the late 1970s, in fact it is at its lowest in over a hundred years, and again the sun has the wrong “fingerprint”. You can read more about this here.

A thin yellow line graph (on black background) shows the sun’s irradiance fluctuating every 11 year. However, it does not go up overall, but it rather goes down even though the red line graph showing temperature rises sharply. — Solar irradiance (yellow) plotted with temperature (red) since 1880. NASA, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

Volcanoes and Other Natural Sources of Carbon Emissions Do Not Contribute to Global Warming

Human emissions are roughly 60 to 100 times greater than all global volcanic output combined. In addition, volcanoes are part of the carbon cycle which has been stable for a long time. Thus, volcanoes are not the cause of the current rapid global warming. You can read more about this here.

The graph shows human emissions exceeding that of volcanoes around 1870 and then rising rapidly. | Without the Burning of Fossil Fuels Earth would be cooling — Human carbon missions (green line) vs. emissions from volcanic eruptions (purple line at bottom). Data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) at the DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Burton et al., 2013.

There are a lot of natural carbon emissions from the soil, rotting plants, animal and human respiration, and oceans, and a small amount from volcanoes. However, carbon is also absorbed by the oceans, and by plants via photosynthesis, etc., and this creates a balance that has existed for many thousands of years. This is called the carbon cycle. Even though the carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels are smaller than some of the naturally occurring carbon emissions, it is the carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels that are behind the increase of carbon in the atmosphere because they are a new addition that disrupts the carbon cycle.

The carbon cycle in the picture shows that the terrestrial biosphere is absorbing 120 Gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere and emits 60 Gigatons to the atmosphere. It also adds 60 Gigatons of carbon to terrestrial soils. It also shows the Surface of the Ocean both emitting and absorbing 90 Gigatons of carbon to the atmosphere and both emitting and absorbing 90 Gigatons of carbon to the deep ocean. There are additional flows in the picture. It is complex but stable cycle. — The picture above was drawn by me and is an adaptation of Figure 3.1 on page 31 in the book “The Physics of Climate Change by Lawrence M. Krauss”.

Conclusion

Orbital cycles, so called Milankovitch cycles, changes climate naturally but they are in a cooling phase. The sun is cooling a bit. Reductions in Ozone depleting gases have a cooling effect and aerosol particle pollution has a cooling effect.

Climate variability, climate oscillations, climate currents affect climate and are important to climate and are affected by global warming, but they are not the cause behind the recent rapid global warming.

Volcanoes and carbon emissions that are part of the carbon cycle are not adding to the carbon in the atmosphere. However, carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels do. If we didn’t burn fossil fuels Earth would be cooling.

Note : this does imply that our carbon emissions is a good thing. The rapid global warming we are witnessing is a very dangerous problem.

Other super facts related to global warming

To see the other Super Facts click here

The Most Important Greenhouse Gas Does Not Drive Global Warming

Superfact 133: Water vapor is responsible for roughly half of Earth’s total greenhouse effect, but unlike carbon dioxide or methane, water vapor condenses and falls as precipitation. Water molecules only stay in the atmosphere for about two weeks. We do not directly control global water vapor levels. When carbon dioxide warms the planet the atmosphere holds more water vapor, which amplifies the initial warming. However, water vapor does not drive global warming. Carbon dioxide emissions and to a lesser degree methane emissions drive global warming. Water vapor just amplifies the effect.

Several transparent water molecules floating around on a blue background. The atoms in the molecules look like glass balls. | The Most Important Greenhouse Gas Does Not Drive Global Warming — Water vapor is water in gaseous form, and it is invisible. This is a 3D illustration of a water molecule (H2O – two hydrogen atoms and one Oxygen atom). Shutterstock asset id: 1656757654 by Anusorn Nakdee

On social media you often see the claim that water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and the implicit implication is supposedly that our carbon emissions are not the problem. Alternatively, since water vapor has been around forever and is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, global warming can’t be caused by greenhouse gases. What is getting lost in these posts is that we are not adding water vapor to the atmosphere like we are adding carbon dioxide (or methane) to the atmosphere. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere will increase because a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor, but that is because of our carbon emissions in the first place. You can read more about that here, and here, and here.

The picture shows a river flowing into the see (labeled collection), evaporation from the sea and transpiration from the land. The condensation creates clouds and it rains (precipitation). — Illustration of simple water cycle diagram. Water vapor, a greenhouse gas, is added to the atmosphere from evaporation (the sea) and transpiration (soil, plants, etc.) Then it condenses into clouds and comes down as precipitation. It collects in rivers, etc., and ends up in oceans and lakes. – Shutterstock asset id: Asset id: 2524245337 by zombiu26

A related fact is that the water cycle is a relatively fast cycle compared to the carbon cycle. A water molecule stays in the atmosphere on average for two weeks according to MIT and nine days according to Wikipedia. Our carbon emissions stay in the atmosphere for several hundred years. In short, water vapor is not the driver of the current rapid global warming. That is chiefly carbon dioxide, but also methane, and deforestation.

It does not matter that water vapor causes a larger percentage of the warming than carbon dioxide. It is not what is causing the increase in the average global temperature. Since so many people have been fooled by the water vapor misdirection, incorrectly thinking that carbon dioxide is unimportant because water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas, this is an important fact that will come as a surprise to many. Therefore, it is a super fact in my opinion.

More on the Water Cycle and the Greenhouse Effect

Below is a more detailed illustration of the water cycle for those who are interested. It should be noted that even though water vapor is not driving the rapid global warming we are witnessing, the very rapid global warming we are experiencing is affecting the water cycle, for example, the precipitation patterns around the world. You can read more about that here.

This detailed illustration of the water cycle shows the different fluxes and pools that are part of the water cycle. The percentages and circulation patterns are shown. | The Most Important Greenhouse Gas Does Not Drive Global Warming — Water cycle showing human influences and major pools (storages) and fluxes. This is a more detailed picture than the one above. LangeLeslie and Anna Wright, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons. This picture is taken from here.

Another less simplistic argument based on water vapor as a greenhouse gas that tries to claim that carbon dioxide is not behind the rapid global warming we are seeing is that water vapor is such an effective greenhouse gas across all frequences that there is not much room for carbon dioxide to make it worse.

Greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation and that is what warms the atmosphere like a blanket. However, the different greenhouse gases absorb radiation at different frequencies. As you can see in the figure below water vapor has a pretty impressive spread across most frequencies.

However, if you look carefully, you see that carbon dioxide and water vapor complement each other in the spectra and in addition, as mentioned, we are not increasing water vapor directly, but we are increasing the amount of carbon dioxide directly. It should be noted that, in addition, satellite measurements directly confirm that our emissions are warming the planet. The topic of absorption at different frequencies by carbon dioxide and water vapor is explored in greater detail in the book “The Physics of Climate Change by Lawrence M. Krauss”, which I reviewed here.

The illustration below shows the physical drivers of global warming that have happened so far. Carbon dioxide is a physical driver that will keep growing. Notice that water vapor is not listed. Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas but is not a physical driver of the rapid global warming that we are witnessing.

Aerosols are included and they tend to have a cooling effect rather than a warming effect. Therefore, many people are suggesting to, for example, use Sulphur dioxide to cool the atmosphere and counter global warming. The problem with that is that it is just a different type of pollution that has other negative effects, such as acid rain, it causes breathing difficulties and has other kinds of effects on climate that are not necessarily plain cooling effects. This is a hotly debated issue. — The absorption bands of Earth’s atmosphere (grey color) delimit its atmospheric windows (middle panel) and the effect they have on both down going solar radiation and upgoing thermal radiation emitted near the surface is shown in the top panel. The individual absorption spectra of major greenhouse gases plus Rayleigh scattering are shown in the lower panel. This figure was prepared by Robert A. Rohde Д.Ильин: vectorization (File:Atmospheric Transmission-ru.svg); Cepheiden translation back to english, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons. This figure below is taken from this website.

The diagram shows the physical drivers for global warming including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, halogenated gases, nitrogen oxides, and other gases. It also shows the effect of aerosols, particularly Sulphur dioxide, which is often the opposite. | The Most Important Greenhouse Gas Does Not Drive Global Warming — Physical drivers of global warming that have happened so far. Future global warming potential for long-lived drivers like carbon dioxide emissions is not represented. Whiskers on each bar show the possible error range. Eric Fisk, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons. The illustration is taken from this site.

Conclusion

Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas but unlike carbon dioxide and methane it is not driving the rapid global warming that we are seeing. We are directly increasing water vapor via water vapor emissions, and if we did it would just come raining back down pretty quickly. However, when carbon dioxide warms the planet the atmosphere holds more water vapor, which amplifies the initial warming.

Other super facts related to global warming

To see the other Super Facts click here

Gulf of America is not Recognized Internationally

Super fact 130 : Gulf of America is not Recognized Internationally. The United Nations does not recognize the name “Gulf of America,” and continues to use the internationally established name Gulf of Mexico. The name “Gulf of America” applies only to the domestic agencies of the United States.

The U.S. executive order renaming the body of water only applies within the United States and its federal agencies. International organizations and hydrographic groups, such as the International Hydrographic Organization, continue to officially recognize the historical name, the Gulf of Mexico. The UN (towards bottom) and global news organizations such as the AP will continue to use the name Gulf of Mexico.

Countries bordering the Gulf of Mexico / Gulf of America, including Mexico, do not recognize the name change. English speaking countries such as the UK continues to call it the Gulf of Mexico. You can read more about the UK stance here. In non-English speaking countries such as my native country Sweden, the Gulf is called something that translates to the “Gulf of Mexico”. In Swedish, the Gulf is called “Mexikanska golfen”, and it is the name that appears in media, on maps, and typically in speech.

The Geographic Names Information System (a US federal database) and US federal agencies adopted the name Gulf of America, and Google maps and Apple maps adopted the new name in the US. If you switch country, it may say Gulf of Mexico, or Gulf of Mexico or other local name followed by (Gulf of America), i.e., Gulf of America in parenthesis. MapQuest and OpenStreetMap chose not to adopt the name “Gulf of America” at all.

The six minutes and 43 seconds long video below by the mapping company World Maps Online explain why they did not adopt the name “Gulf of America”. In short, it is because they follow the UN naming conventions (at 5:40 in the video). Earlier in the video it is explained that the renaming only applies to the US continental shelf area, not the entire body of water, yes, even in the US the entire gulf was not renamed. The video also explains that naming conflicts are common and that there is no global authority that can resolve them and therefore the International Hydrographic Organization, the leading international map naming organization uses numbers instead of names. You are naturally free to listen to the whole video, but I am starting it 5 minutes in.

I have become aware that many Americans now incorrectly believe that the new name Gulf of America is “official” everywhere and therefore they go around trying to correct people. It is an important fact that is widely misunderstood and therefore I consider it a super fact.

My Personal Encounter with the Gulf of Mexico vs Gulf of America Controversy

I write beer reviews in various places, and I administer several Facebook beer review groups. When I said I was vacationing by the Gulf of Mexico in one of the Facebook beer groups that I administrate, two guys I have never seen posting anything in the group demanded that I change Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America. I explained that this beer group is international. There are people from Germany, Sweden, France, Mexico, Canada, China, as well as US, posting in the group, so using a more internationally recognized name is just practical. I was not trying to make a point, which was true.

However, I can add that the name Gulf of America does not seem to be very popular even in the US. A February 2025 poll by Marquette University found that, among 1,018 respondents nationwide, 71% opposed renaming the Gulf of Mexico and only 29% supported the name change. So, the people who lecture others about using Gulf of America instead of Gulf of Mexico should maybe reconsider.

Origins of the name Gulf of Mexico

The name “Gulf of Mexico” is derived from the ethnonym Mexica referring to the Nahuatl-speaking people of the Valley of Mexico also known as the Aztecs. The name “Gulf of Mexico” has been in use since the 1550s and is internationally recognized.

Lake Ontario versus Lake America

A similar situation exists with Lake Ontario. A US executive order has been issued to rename Lake Ontario to Lake America. However, this is not internationally recognized. As mentioned, a country can rename an international body of water for its own domestic agencies, but that change has no binding legal effect on other nations or international bodies.

As with the Gulf of Mexico the old and internationally used name “Lake Ontario” is derived from indigenous languages. The name Ontario is likely derived from the Iroquoian word Kaniatarí:io or Oniatarí:io meaning “lake of shining waters” or “beautiful lake”. It has been in use since at least 1641.

This is a map of the five great lakes. I added the name “Lake Whatchamacallit” in red with a red arrow to indicate which of the lakes I am referring to. — Lake Ontario is now called Lake America in the US. This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons from this Wikipedia location. I updated it by adding Lake Whatchamacallit.

I can add that our President has also issued an executive order changing the name Denali (also indigenous name) to Mount McKinley. However, this is in Alaska, which is US sovereign territory and a bit different. He can do that. Another situation exists with the proposed renaming of New Mexico to New America. New Mexico happens to be written into the New Mexico constitution, making an official name change beyond the President’s power. I can also add that Like the Gulf, the region historically known as Nuevo Mexico was named for the valley, not for the country or even the Spanish province of Mexico. Nuevo Mexico was probably named circa 1560 to 1580 and first appeared on maps in the early 1590s.

What About Renaming Canada Geese to Donald Ducks?

Finally, a little joke

Five Canada Geese by a lake. They have yellow hair on top of their heads. — Can Canada Geese be renamed to Donald Ducks? Asking for a President. I generated the picture with the help of ChatGPT.

To see the other Super Facts click here

Carbon Cycle Emissions Does Not Cause Global Warming

Superfact 128: There are a lot of natural carbon emissions from the soil, rotting plants, animal and human respiration, and oceans, and a small amount from volcanoes. However, carbon is also absorbed by the oceans, and by plants via photosynthesis, etc., and this creates a balance that has existed for many thousands of years. This is called the carbon cycle. Despite the fact that the carbon emissions from our burning of fossil fuels are much smaller than some of the naturally occurring carbon emissions mentioned, they are what is behind the increase of carbon in the atmosphere because they are a new addition that disrupts the carbon cycle.

Regarding the picture above, the units are in Gigatons of carbon, i.e. the weight of the carbon atom. To get the numbers in Gigatons of carbon dioxide multiply all numbers by 3.67. The numbers in yellow inside the blocks correspond to how much carbon is stored in the system. The numbers without units in the grey arrows correspond to the number of Gigatons of carbon per year. I can add that Lawrence M. Krauss is not a climate scientist but a prominent theoretical physicist focusing on cosmology and quantum physics. However, he took a deep dive into the physics of climate change.

This picture is the same as above with the addition of our recent carbon emissions at 10 Gigaton. Oceans and other systems are absorbing some of it resulting in a net increase of 5 Gigaton per year. — This is the same picture as above, but I added the contribution from our recent additional carbon emissions such as the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. This is depicted at far right in yellow. Since this is not part of the original carbon cycle the amount of carbon in the atmosphere grew from 600 Gigatons (pre-industrial) to 900 Gigatons.

As you can see in the picture above the amount of carbon stored in the atmosphere was 600 Gigaton originally and now we have increased it to 900 Gigaton. We are adding 10 Gigatons of carbon from our emissions, chiefly from burning fossil fuels, which correspond to 37 Gigatons of carbon dioxide. About half of this is absorbed by the ocean and other systems, resulting in a net addition of 5 Gigatons per year. The carbon dioxide added and stored in the atmosphere will be there for hundreds or thousands of years.

The existence of the carbon cycle and how it explains what is going on is an important fact that is widely misunderstood and therefore a surprising fact. You quite often see or hear claims such as “animal and human respiration emit a lot more carbon dioxide than our burning of fossil fuels, and therefore human caused global warming is BS”. The first part of that sentence is true, but the rest ignores the carbon cycle and the balance that has existed for many thousands of years. Therefore, this is a super fact.

The diagram shows how carbon is emitted and absorbed between the various elements in nature and our planet. It shows animals, plants, the soil, and also emissions from factories. The text says “The Carbon Cycle is important because it helps keep the right amount of carbon in the air, water, and soil. Too much carbon in the air can cause problems for our Earth and its climate.” | Carbon Cycle Emissions Does Not Cause Global Warming — This illustration of the Carbon Cycle is simplified but artistic. Shutterstock asset id: 2271978649 by GraphicsRF.com

More on the Carbon Cycle

This picture is the same as the one above where I included our recent emissions from burning fossil fuels. — Same as the picture above but notice the flows depicted by the arrows and the total amounts stored in each system.

The carbon cycle describes the process in which carbon atoms continually travel from the atmosphere to the Earth and then back into the atmosphere. In the picture above you can see that the atmosphere, the oceans, the biosphere, and the soil, as well as deep Earth reservoirs and Marine Carbonate Sediments are all absorbing and emitting carbon (dioxide). For example, the terrestrial biosphere absorbs 120 Gigatons of carbon per year, chiefly through photosynthesis, and emits 60 Gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere, via for example, animal / microbial / human respiration, rotting plants, and it adds another 60 Gigatons of carbon to terrestrial soils. 120 Gigatons of carbon correspond to 440 Gigatons of carbon dioxide.

This is a fairly detailed picture of the carbon cycle from wikipedia. | Carbon Cycle Emissions Does Not Cause Global Warming — Carbon cycle schematic showing the movement of carbon between land, atmosphere, and oceans in billions of tons (gigatons) per year. Yellow numbers are natural fluxes, red are human contributions, and white are stored carbon. The effects of the slow (or deep) carbon cycle, such as volcanic and tectonic activity are not included. Diagram adapted from U.S. DOE, Biological and Environmental Research Information System., Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

The carbon cycle was relatively stable until we started burning massive amounts of fossil fuels. Our burning of fossil fuels emits 10 Gigatons of carbon (37 Gigatons of carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere. About 30% of this carbon is absorbed by the oceans. This slows the warming but causes ocean acidification, which is another dangerous problem. In total 50% of the carbon emissions are absorbed by oceans, the soil, the biosphere, etc., according to “The Physics of Climate Change by Lawrence M. Krauss”. This is why I wrote Net 5 Gigatons per year in the picture above. You can read more about the Carbon Cycle here and here.

Another thing to pay attention to in the diagrams above is that not only are volcanoes part of the carbon cycle, but their contribution to carbon emissions is tiny compared to our emissions, which contradicts the many false claims you see on social media. You can read about that in my post “Volcanoes emit a tiny fraction of carbon compared to humans”.

Conclusion

Many of our Planet’s systems (oceans, biosphere, terrestrial soil, atmosphere, etc.) emit (and absorb) more carbon dioxide than our burning of fossil fuels does. However, the fact that they are part of the long existing carbon cycle makes them irrelevant to the rapid and sudden global warming phenomenon that we are witnessing. The recent rapid Global Warming is happening, and it is caused by us, chiefly because of our burning of fossil fuels. I am illustrating this using the two bathtub pictures below.

The picture shows a glass bathtub half filled with water. There are a faucet and a drain with the same flow keeping the water level the same. — **The stream of water from the faucet is the same as the stream from the drain keeping the water level steady. The bathtub is half full and stays half full.** **I generated the picture with the help of ChatGPT.**

The picture shows a glass bathtub half filled with water. There are a faucet and a drain with the same flow keeping the water level the same. | Carbon Cycle Emissions Does Not Cause Global Warming — The stream of water from the faucet is faster than the stream from the drain so the water level increases. The additional amount from the faucet represents the carbon emissions we added. The bathtub is now 2/3 up and rising. I generated the picture with the help of ChatGPT.

Other super facts related to global warming

To see the other Super Facts click here

Volcanoes emit a tiny fraction of carbon compared to humans

Superfact 125: Volcanoes emit about 0.2 to 0.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year globally. Our burning of fossil fuels and industrial activities release more than 35 billion metric tons annually. Human emissions are roughly 60 to 100 times greater than all global volcanic output combined. Thus, volcanoes are not the cause of the current rapid global warming.

Have you ever seen claims on social media such as “a single volcanic eruption release as much CO2 as all of humanity has to date? Or 100 times as much? Or 10,000 times as much? As Snopes explains this is of course nonsense. I’ve seen this kind of claim many times and I’ve seen in the comment sections that a lot of people fall for them. That makes me wonder about people’s critical thinking skills as well as Facebook’s alleged fact checking.

As the super-fact above states, volcanoes emit about 0.2 to 0.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide per year globally. Our burning of fossil fuels and industrial activities release more than 35 billion to 38 metric tons annually. Thus, volcanoes emit only a small fraction of CO2 compared to what we do burning fossil fuels. Which also means that volcanoes are not the cause of the current rapid global warming. You can read more about this here, or here, or here, or here.

The graph shows human emissions exceeding that of volcanoes around 1870 and then rising rapidly. — Human carbon missions (green line) vs. emissions from volcanic eruptions (purple line). Data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) at the DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Burton et al., 2013.

The graph above compares human carbon emissions (green line) with carbon emissions from volcanic eruptions (purple line). Human carbon emissions (the burning of fossil fuels and cement production) correspond to 35 billion metric tons annually while volcanic emissions are less than one ton annually. The graph is based on data from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) at the DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Burton et al., 2013.

Since so many people so quickly believe the disinformation, this fact should be surprising to a lot of people, and it is kind of important. Therefore, I consider it a super fact.

How do Volcanoes Affect Climate?

The emissions from volcanoes and their effect on climate are complicated. A large volcanic eruption can result in a lot of carbon emissions during a short period of time, but that typically does add up to being substantial in comparison to our annual anthropogenic carbon emissions. However, volcanic emissions include other gases that are not greenhouse gases, particularly Sulphur dioxide, which acts like an aerosol reflecting sunlight. This results in a more noticeable effect, but it is not a warming effect, but a cooling effect.

Long story short, when a volcano has a massive explosion, it shoots sulfur dioxide gas high up into the stratosphere, it mixes with water to make tiny liquid drops that reflect sunlight away from Earth. This causes global temperatures to drop for one to three years. In addition, to some global cooling volcanic eruptions can deplete Earth’s Ozone layer. However, as mentioned the amount of carbon dioxide released from volcanic eruptions is negligible compared to our emissions from burning fossil fuels.

The schematic shows a volcano and how different gases, such as CO2, SO2, HCL, HF, water vapor, etc., affect the atmosphere. | Volcanoes emit a tiny fraction of carbon compared to humans — Schematic of volcanic eruption. cflm, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. Schematic taken from this page.

How did Volcanoes Affect Climate in the past?

It has been proposed that intense volcanic release of carbon dioxide in the deep geologic past did cause global warming back then, and possibly some mass extinctions. This is a topic of scientific debate. However, whether these eruptions caused global warming or not, their intensity and the circumstances under which they happened were much different from today.

Unlike the single eruptions that cool the Earth with ash and sulfur today, these rare ancient eruptions were giant outpourings that lasted hundreds of thousands of years, or millions of years, and overwhelmed the planet’s natural carbon cleanup systems. Instead of coming from a single mountain peak, the magma poured out of giant cracks, or fissures, in the earth.

The Permian-Triassic extinction or the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) 56 million years ago is thought to possibly have been such an event. It could also have been that volcanic eruptions caused the sudden release of methane hydrates from ocean sediments.

Ten erupting volcanoes and in between them are cracks pouring out lava and lava flowing in the valleys. | Volcanoes emit a tiny fraction of carbon compared to humans — Luckily, we don’t have this problem today. We are not 250 million years ago. I made this picture with the help of ChatGPT.

A Couple of Videos and Links

The video below is a short one-minute overview of the causes behind global warming.

The video below from NASA is a bit longer, 13 minutes, but it gives a more detailed overview. Click here to see the page from where this is coming from.

Conclusion

This is my third post in the series about natural causes of climate change that we know are not the cause of the current rapid global warming / climate change (I use both words interchangeably). The fact that no known natural cause for climate change can explain the current rapid global warming is just one small piece of the evidence. However, it is a piece that people tend to get stuck on a lot. You often hear claims such as “climate has always changed”. “I think it is a natural cause”.

Unlike the sun and orbital cycles carbon emissions from erupting volcanoes would warm the lower atmosphere while cooling the upper atmosphere, just like our burning of fossil fuels does, and the warming would distribute in time and geography in a similar way. However, we know that the carbon emissions from volcanoes are relatively tiny compared to the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

In addition, isotope studies show that the origin of the greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere are from burning fossil fuels. This is referred to as the isotopic footprint. These two reasons are how we know that it cannot be volcanoes that are causing the current rapid warming. Here is an additional long list of answers to common questions and objections to human caused global warming.