3 ms·

> So when man spews massive amounts of CO2, the climate changes. When the same thing happens with a volcano eruption, nothing. Let's see one recent volcanic er

by yongjik 11y ago

> So when man spews massive amounts of CO2, the climate changes. When the same thing happens with a volcano eruption, nothing. Let's see one recent volcanic eruption that caused quite some trouble: > The grounding of European flights avoided about 3.44×10^8 kg of CO2 emissions per day, while the volcano emitted about 1.5×10^8 kg of CO2 per day. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_eruptions_of_Eyjafjallaj%C3%B6kull https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_eruptions_of_Eyjafjallaj%... I.e., The eruption of Eyjafjallajökull had a net negative effect in CO2 emission because the effect of grounded European flights alone more than compensated for the natural volcanic emission. So, yes, when man spews massive amounts of CO2, the climate changes. And pray that the same amount of CO2 is never spewed through a volcanic eruption, unless you long to die in a volcanic apocalypse.

paulhauggis 11y ago
"unless you long to die in a volcanic apocalypse." If that were the case, we would already be dead from the amounts spewed from the European flights. No? I think one of my problems with it all is that we have been hearing the exact same thing since the 1970s. The sky will fall and all life on earth will be destroyed because of global warming, global cooling, and climate change. ~40 years have passed and nothing has happened. The predictions were wrong.
- yongjik 11y ago
  (Sigh) It seems I have to spell it out. > The Mount Pinatubo eruption emitted 42 million tonnes of CO2 (Gerlach et al 1996). Compare this to human emissions in 1991: 23 billion tonnes of CO2 (CDIAC). The strongest eruption over the last half-century amounted to 0.2% of human CO2 emissions in that year. [1] In other words, for volcanic eruptions to match human CO2 output, we need ~500 Mount Pinatubo's every year (or roughly two of them every day). Like watching volcanoes? [1] https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=50 https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=50 Edit: on second thought, if we have anywhere near that many volcanoes, most of us will be too busy starving to death to contribute anything meaningful to the anthropogenic global warming (which would be no more), so maybe one Mount Pinatubo every week or so would be enough to match human emission.

by yongjik 11y ago

paulhauggis 11y ago

"unless you long to die in a volcanic apocalypse." If that were the case, we would already be dead from the amounts spewed from the European flights. No? I think one of my problems with it all is that we have been hearing the exact same thing since the 1970s. The sky will fall and all life on earth will be destroyed because of global warming, global cooling, and climate change. ~40 years have passed and nothing has happened. The predictions were wrong.

yongjik 11y ago
(Sigh) It seems I have to spell it out. > The Mount Pinatubo eruption emitted 42 million tonnes of CO2 (Gerlach et al 1996). Compare this to human emissions in 1991: 23 billion tonnes of CO2 (CDIAC). The strongest eruption over the last half-century amounted to 0.2% of human CO2 emissions in that year. [1] In other words, for volcanic eruptions to match human CO2 output, we need ~500 Mount Pinatubo's every year (or roughly two of them every day). Like watching volcanoes? [1] https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=50 https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=50 Edit: on second thought, if we have anywhere near that many volcanoes, most of us will be too busy starving to death to contribute anything meaningful to the anthropogenic global warming (which would be no more), so maybe one Mount Pinatubo every week or so would be enough to match human emission.