Do Volcanoes Produce More CO2 Than Humans?

[Old Rocks]

Too Funny:

All three of the last major Yellowstone eruptions dwarfed mans output in total by a factor of 1,000.. and with in 100 years of each eruption the air was clear, cold, but clear..

But hey, dont let a few facts spoil your liberal rant...

Yellowstone hasn't erupted since before humans walked the earth.

SO what? You claimed that volcano's can not and have not spewed more than man. That statement is an outright lie.

That volcano's cannot and have not spewed more than man is an outright lie. But that is what you said, not what Liminal said. Yes, before and during the P-T extinction event volcanoes spewed more GHG's than we have put in the atmosphere thus far. But we are putting the GHGs in the atmosphere at a much faster rate than did the volcanoes of that time.

What Liminal said is that the Yellowstone Caldera has not had a major eruption during that time that Homo Sapiens has been on earth, and that is correct.

Ok moron.. How much did Sulfur-dioxide, Carbon dioxide, Carbon-monoxide, Ozone, and other GHG's/particulates did Yellowstone belched out during the last three major eruptions. Just one volcano dwarfs mans output throughout the industrial age?

You really should stop the wacky weeds..

Billy Boy, Toba was larger.

Toba Supervolcano Not to Blame for Humanity s Near-Extinction

The largest supervolcano eruption of the past 2.5 million years was a series of explosions of Mount Toba on the Indonesian island of Sumatra about 75,000 years ago. Researchers say Toba spewed out a staggering 700 cubic miles (2,800 cubic kilometers) of magma, equivalent in mass to more than 19 million Empire State Buildings. By comparison, the infamous blast from the volcanic Indonesian island of Krakatoa in 1883, one of the largest eruptions in recorded history, released about 3 cubic miles (12 cubic km) of magma.

Not only was Toba larger, we have some pretty good graphs on how it affected the planet. You can see a dip in temperatures at about 70,000 years, and a corresponding increase in CO2 at about the same time. And increase of about 30 ppm. Only about 1/4 of what we have put in the atmosphere. Caldera type explosions just do not have much CO2 with them. And they are pretty small beans as far as volume goes when compared to the Siberian Trapps, or the Columbia Basalts.

CO2 vs Temperature Last 400 000 years

 

[Two Thumbs]

The answer: No, human activity emits far more CO2 into the atmosphere than any volcano ever has. We know that volcanic activity has dramatically changed global weather patterns in the past. Yet somehow, some people still believe that human activity couldn't possibly have any effect on climate change now.
Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans

that page is kinda vague.

are they comparing one volcano vs mankind or all?

b/c years ago, I watched the Science channel, and they made it clear that volcanoes brought the ice ages to their ends.

so I'm smelling some bs

 

[sealybobo]

The answer: No, human activity emits far more CO2 into the atmosphere than any volcano ever has. We know that volcanic activity has dramatically changed global weather patterns in the past. Yet somehow, some people still believe that human activity couldn't possibly have any effect on climate change now.
Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans

Are we a parasite on this planet? Over consuming and populating. We need to think green. We can't keep going like this. We can do better.

 

[Old Rocks]

The answer: No, human activity emits far more CO2 into the atmosphere than any volcano ever has. We know that volcanic activity has dramatically changed global weather patterns in the past. Yet somehow, some people still believe that human activity couldn't possibly have any effect on climate change now.
Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans

that page is kinda vague.

are they comparing one volcano vs mankind or all?

b/c years ago, I watched the Science channel, and they made it clear that volcanoes brought the ice ages to their ends.

so I'm smelling some bs

Then remove your shorts. Because volcanoes do not bring our present ice ages to an end. The Milankovic Cycles do. A couple of billion years ago, volcanoes did bring the 'snowball Earth' era to an end a couple of times. But for the present ice age, about 2 million years old, volcanoes have had little to do with the cylcles.

 

[hortysir]

Yet somehow, some people still believe that human activity couldn't possibly have any effect on climate change now.
Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans

The believe that man can't destroy the world is deeply rooted in Christian ideology. God will destroy the earth, not man so all this global warming has to be just nonsense. And of course, it's a liberal conspiracy.

So, by that logic, liberals and AGW supporters are all atheists

Blanket statements barely keep your feet warm

 

[Two Thumbs]

The answer: No, human activity emits far more CO2 into the atmosphere than any volcano ever has. We know that volcanic activity has dramatically changed global weather patterns in the past. Yet somehow, some people still believe that human activity couldn't possibly have any effect on climate change now.
Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans

that page is kinda vague.

are they comparing one volcano vs mankind or all?

b/c years ago, I watched the Science channel, and they made it clear that volcanoes brought the ice ages to their ends.

so I'm smelling some bs

Then remove your shorts. Because volcanoes do not bring our present ice ages to an end. The Milankovic Cycles do. A couple of billion years ago, volcanoes did bring the 'snowball Earth' era to an end a couple of times. But for the present ice age, about 2 million years old, volcanoes have had little to do with the cylcles.

So I'm right, that link is complete bullshit

 

[Old Rocks]

Thumb, you haven't the faintest what you are talking about.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The answer: No, human activity emits far more CO2 into the atmosphere than any volcano ever has. We know that volcanic activity has dramatically changed global weather patterns in the past. Yet somehow, some people still believe that human activity couldn't possibly have any effect on climate change now.
Do volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans

We know that volcanic activity has dramatically changed global weather patterns in the past.

That's awful!!! We must immediately spend trillions to make sure this never occurs again.

 

[Old Rocks]

We would be better off teaching certain idiots the art of posting intelligently.

 

[skookerasbil]

Message to the OP...........if tomorrow, the 100 biggest volcano's blew their tops, the AGW nuts would still be on here with a "meh" attitude. Volcano's are a non-factor in terms of the climate according to the AGW crowd. Its all humans all the time!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Too, for the AGW k00ks, cow farts are more of a danger to the environment than volcano's!!

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118887/methane-next-climate-initiative-Obama


Dinosaur farts created global warming and climate change with massive methane output.


It May Take a Global Vegetarian Movement to Combat Climate Change - NationalJournal.com



You cant make this shit up!!!


These fruitcakes want global vegetarianism.

 

[Billy_Bob]

We would be better off teaching certain idiots the art of posting intelligently.

WE would go broke starting with you..

 

[Matted Joybeard]

Too, for the AGW k00ks, cow farts are more of a danger to the environment than volcano's!!

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118887/methane-next-climate-initiative-Obama


Dinosaur farts created global warming and climate change with massive methane output.


It May Take a Global Vegetarian Movement to Combat Climate Change - NationalJournal.com



You cant make this shit up!!!


These fruitcakes want global vegetarianism.

Since there wouldn't be anywhere near the billion plus cows unless due to breeding for human consumption, you're making the OP's point and agreeing that human activity outweighs threats to the global environment than that of volcanoes. Think about what you're saying and re-evaluate your position on AGW if you truly believe what you posted in those links.

 

[skookerasbil]

Too, for the AGW k00ks, cow farts are more of a danger to the environment than volcano's!!

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118887/methane-next-climate-initiative-Obama


Dinosaur farts created global warming and climate change with massive methane output.


It May Take a Global Vegetarian Movement to Combat Climate Change - NationalJournal.com



You cant make this shit up!!!


These fruitcakes want global vegetarianism.

Since there wouldn't be anywhere near the billion plus cows unless due to breeding for human consumption, you're making the OP's point and agreeing that human activity outweighs threats to the global environment than that of volcanoes. Think about what you're saying and re-evaluate your position on AGW if you truly believe what you posted in those links.

Nah.....a waste of time s0n!! Either way, the science isn't mattering in the real world

 

[Liminal]

Too, for the AGW k00ks, cow farts are more of a danger to the environment than volcano's!!

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118887/methane-next-climate-initiative-Obama


Dinosaur farts created global warming and climate change with massive methane output.


It May Take a Global Vegetarian Movement to Combat Climate Change - NationalJournal.com



You cant make this shit up!!!


These fruitcakes want global vegetarianism.

Yet none of the denier retards can come anywhere close to refuting the premise.

 

[SwimExpert]

Since there wouldn't be anywhere near the billion plus cows unless due to breeding for human consumption

Unsubstantiated assumption.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

Despite the worldwide existence of cattle, the only place that comes to mind here a large unmanaged population exists is India. Everywhere else cattle is managed for dairy and beef consumption largely and the reproduction rates of cows is not dependent on natural factors, but through breeding programs to meet the ever increasing human taste for beef. This isn't disputed. Then one has to factor in that undeniable carbon sinks like the rain forests in South America are are being waylaid mostly for the purposes of cattle ranching. Logically it follows that if one accepts that cows are bad and deforestation are bad for the environment and that cattle populations and deforestation are a result of human activity then human activity is having a great impact on the environment than volcanoes.

 

[SwimExpert]

Despite the worldwide existence of cattle, the only place that comes to mind here a large unmanaged population exists is India. Everywhere else cattle is managed for dairy and beef consumption largely and the reproduction rates of cows is not dependent on natural factors, but through breeding programs to meet the ever increasing human taste for beef. This isn't disputed. Then one has to factor in that undeniable carbon sinks like the rain forests in South America are are being waylaid mostly for the purposes of cattle ranching. Logically it follows that if one accepts that cows are bad and deforestation are bad for the environment and that cattle populations and deforestation are a result of human activity then human activity is having a great impact on the environment than volcanoes.

And if humans had never walked the Earth? What would the population of wild bovine be? Human expansion in North America drove the native bovine to near extinction. Take humans out of the equation and you can eliminate domesticated bovine (whose mortality rates are also artificially high). But you gain wild bovine.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

Your premise isn't different than the one you're arguing against - that humans are a controlling factor in a cattle populations (among other things importantly). Independent of humans cattle populations are dependent on available grazing territories placing population limits. That countries like Brazil are chopping up carbon sink rain forests to convert it cattle ranches largely are evidence of this fact. Humans need to engineer environments for cattle to thrive due too a lack of natural availability to support demand.

 

[SwimExpert]

Your premise isn't different than the one you're arguing against - that humans are a controlling factor in a cattle populations (among other things importantly). Independent of humans cattle populations are dependent on available grazing territories placing population limits. That countries like Brazil are chopping up carbon sink rain forests to convert it cattle ranches largely are evidence of this fact. Humans need to engineer environments for cattle to thrive due too a lack of natural availability to support demand.

No, your entire position is reliant on a human centric analysis. Just because humans are clearing spaces for cattle ranches in Brazil does not mean that bovine would not thrive and prosper elsewhere in the world if humans did not exist.