3 ms·

One small volcano vs all European flights. Now look at this: | Year | Volcano | Mean Sulphurous Output | Source | Est. Carbon

yongjik 11y ago
So you're bringing up the Toba eruption (circa 71,000BP!), probably the largest eruption in the past 100 thousand years, which was so extreme that some scholars suspect that it created a "genetic bottleneck" in human DNA by killing off the majority of humans.[1] According to your list, it emitted 494.24 Mt of carbon. By comparison: "Since 1751 approximately 374 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these fossil-fuel CO2 emissions have occurred since the mid 1980s. The 2011 global fossil-fuel carbon emission estimate, 9449 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 3.4% increase over 2010 emissions."[2] Fun fact: "In 2014, about 136.78 billion gallons (or 3.26 billion barrels) of gasoline were consumed in the United States."[3] Gasoline's density is 719.7 kg/m^3, so this is roughly 372 Mt of gasoline, of which most is carbon. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory#Genetic_bottleneck_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory#Geneti... [2] http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob_2011.html http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob_2011.html [3] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=23&t=10 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=23&t=10
- ommunist 11y ago
  Unfortunately there is no magic fingerprint to distinguish between tectonic, volcanic and antropogenic carbon. The thing is that there are about 130 000 intraplate volcanoes leaking co2 to the ocean all the time. And it is very probable that the whole human output to carbon release during the whole industrial history is less than carbon input of the Pacific Ridge in just 10 years. Another thing is that over the last 800 years or so volcanic activity increased. So 30 percent or such increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during the last 100 years is not a human sin. Planet is larger than you think, and humanity is smaller. Take a hike up the Yenisei river from Chita, see for yourself.
  - yongjik 11y ago
    > Unfortunately there is no magic fingerprint to distinguish between tectonic, volcanic and antropogenic carbon. Wrong again. Fossil fuels come from plants and animals, and they all ultimately come from photosynthesis, which prefers C12 over slightly heavier C13 atoms.[1] As a result, CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels have a lower concentration of C13. "Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions."[2] As for "humanity is smaller", I'll refer to the excellent xkcd[3]. I believe no further elaboration is necessary. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopic_signature#Carbon_isotopes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopic_signature#Carbon_isot... [2] http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=109 http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=109 [3] http://xkcd.com/1338/ http://xkcd.com/1338/

yongjik 11y ago

So you're bringing up the Toba eruption (circa 71,000BP!), probably the largest eruption in the past 100 thousand years, which was so extreme that some scholars suspect that it created a "genetic bottleneck" in human DNA by killing off the majority of humans.[1] According to your list, it emitted 494.24 Mt of carbon. By comparison: "Since 1751 approximately 374 billion metric tonnes of carbon have been released to the atmosphere from the consumption of fossil fuels and cement production. Half of these fossil-fuel CO2 emissions have occurred since the mid 1980s. The 2011 global fossil-fuel carbon emission estimate, 9449 million metric tons of carbon, represents an all-time high and a 3.4% increase over 2010 emissions."[2] Fun fact: "In 2014, about 136.78 billion gallons (or 3.26 billion barrels) of gasoline were consumed in the United States."[3] Gasoline's density is 719.7 kg/m^3, so this is roughly 372 Mt of gasoline, of which most is carbon. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory#Genetic_bottleneck_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory#Geneti... [2] http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob_2011.html http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob_2011.html [3] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=23&t=10 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=23&t=10

ommunist 11y ago
Unfortunately there is no magic fingerprint to distinguish between tectonic, volcanic and antropogenic carbon. The thing is that there are about 130 000 intraplate volcanoes leaking co2 to the ocean all the time. And it is very probable that the whole human output to carbon release during the whole industrial history is less than carbon input of the Pacific Ridge in just 10 years. Another thing is that over the last 800 years or so volcanic activity increased. So 30 percent or such increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during the last 100 years is not a human sin. Planet is larger than you think, and humanity is smaller. Take a hike up the Yenisei river from Chita, see for yourself.
- yongjik 11y ago
  > Unfortunately there is no magic fingerprint to distinguish between tectonic, volcanic and antropogenic carbon. Wrong again. Fossil fuels come from plants and animals, and they all ultimately come from photosynthesis, which prefers C12 over slightly heavier C13 atoms.[1] As a result, CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels have a lower concentration of C13. "Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occuring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions."[2] As for "humanity is smaller", I'll refer to the excellent xkcd[3]. I believe no further elaboration is necessary. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopic_signature#Carbon_isotopes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopic_signature#Carbon_isot... [2] http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=109 http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=109 [3] http://xkcd.com/1338/ http://xkcd.com/1338/