Do Volcanoes Produce More CO2 Than Humans?

[Matted Joybeard]

If humans didn't exist there wouldn't be any concern over AGW and it's effects on humanity. It's recognized that volcanoes are bad, that cows are worse than volcanoes and that human activity and that humanity's thirst for beef and diary represent a demand that can only be met by specialized and accelerated breeding programs along with the terraforming of the planet to support those increased population requirements which would not be the case otherwise. The logic is that humanity is essentially constructing additional volcanoes on the planet which is apparently harmful. There's no disagreement on the negative environmental impacts to humanity volcanic activity has or argument over humanities management of cattle population (either positively of negatively).

I'm not sure the point that is trying to be illustrated by disappearing humans. The large herds that unnaturally exist would continue to grow from this natural baseline, but this 'non-human centric' analysis neglects that humanities deforestation efforts would stop and reforestation would occur re-introducing carbon sinks previously eliminated by human activity and GHG emissions through human consumption of carbon based energy sources would cease.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

Plants need CO2 to survive.....so treating CO2 like it's a poison is nonsensical at the very least.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

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

Plants need CO2 to survive.....so treating CO2 like it's a poison is nonsensical at the very least.

Plants generally don't need to be cut down and burned to survive - like what's happening with the deforestation around the globe. It's an accepted fact that the level of forestation the world over was greater before the onset of the industrial age and human expansion, despite the lower levels of GHG then.

 

[dilloduck]

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

Kill more people. It's the obvious answer.

 

[SwimExpert]

If humans didn't exist there wouldn't be any concern over AGW and it's effects on humanity. It's recognized that volcanoes are bad, that cows are worse than volcanoes and that human activity and that humanity's thirst for beef and diary represent a demand that can only be met by specialized and accelerated breeding programs along with the terraforming of the planet to support those increased population requirements which would not be the case otherwise. The logic is that humanity is essentially constructing additional volcanoes on the planet which is apparently harmful. There's no disagreement on the negative environmental impacts to humanity volcanic activity has or argument over humanities management of cattle population (either positively of negatively).

I'm not sure the point that is trying to be illustrated by disappearing humans. The large herds that unnaturally exist would continue to grow from this natural baseline, but this 'non-human centric' analysis neglects that humanities deforestation efforts would stop and reforestation would occur re-introducing carbon sinks previously eliminated by human activity and GHG emissions through human consumption of carbon based energy sources would cease.

Dogma.

You're the one who tried to argue a point that humans are responsible for any impact on the environment bovine may have, and that said impact would not exist if it were not for humans. That is a completely unjustifiable assumption, as there is no way to determine what impact bovine would have on the environment sans humans. In continued, foolish defense of your assumption you are waxing poetic about the human activity as it exists, particularly as it regards human domestication of bovine. This is a textbook example of an irrelevant conclusion fallacy.

 

[Matted Joybeard]

If unknowns cannot be determined and are therefore unjustified, well there's only unknown position being advanced here - hypothetical cattle populations absent humanity. It's not clear what using an unjustifiable position can justify.

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

This kind of thinking is always quite silly. Any species can potentially become parasitic to its environment. In a way, all species will have some degree of parasitic relationship with some part of the environment. Lions kill zebra. Do we think of lions as parasitic to their environment? Do lions need to starting thinking "green"? If lions killed all prey animals in their environment they would themselves die.

Humans are no different than any animal, in that they consume parts of the environment to carve out a place for themselves in it. Like any other animal, if consumption exceeds available resources, the species will consume itself into extinction. It's quite ironic that many of those who so deeply resent humans for consuming parts of the environment, as if it makes us inferior to other parts of nature, end up arriving at such a view based on a very ego-centric view of humanity and nature; it is the belief that we are separate from the rest of nature that leads to the belief that we are inferior to the lion when we consume parts of our environment in order to fuel our own propagation.

None of that is to suggest the equally silly notions that are often on the flip side of the discussion; the idea that humans will "always find a way" through technology or some other means to survive indefinitely regardless of any degree of over consumption or over population, is equally flawed. It's true that humanity would be best situated if we adopt a deeper value of the environment as a whole. But if we view it from a perspective of humans being separate from the rest of the environment we will be simply repeating the same mistake in a new fashion.

 

[SwimExpert]

It's not clear what using an unjustifiable position can justify.

Then stop doing it.

 

[BULLDOG]

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

Plants need CO2 to survive.....so treating CO2 like it's a poison is nonsensical at the very least.

Plants also need phosphorus to survive. Would it be nonsensical to be concerned about too much of that as well?

White phosphorus 'burns to the bone'
It causes skin to melt away from the bone and can break down a victim's jawbone, but white phosphorus - known in Vietnam as Willie Pete - is still used by sections of the world's military.

Similar to Napalm, the chemical substance is used in shells and grenades, igniting spontaneously at around 30C to produce an intense heat and thick pillars of smoke.

Weapons experts warn that when used as an incendiary, it can result in painful chemical burns - injuries which can often prove fatal.

Further problems are caused because the substance can stick to clothing or on the skin and continues to burn unchecked as particles are exposed to air.

Witness accounts of combat in Fallujah, where a significant civilian population were living, claim the injured affected by phosphorus suffered horrendous burns.

It is feared there was widespread use of the weapon, not just to target insurgent positions but in raids on houses and buildings.

Experts at US military information service GlobalSecurity.org claim skin injuries caused by the substance are often "deep and painful".

"The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen," it states in notes on the weapon.

"These weapons are particularly nasty because white phosphorus continues to burn until it disappears. If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone."



Read more: White phosphorus burns to the bone Daily Mail Online

 

[Matted Joybeard]

It's not clear what using an unjustifiable position can justify.

Then stop doing it.

If you could return to reality this would be a much more interesting conversation. It's not a real defense to resort to unreality. Not trying to make fun or anything, just aiming for rational discussion. Your contention would be the cow population would be much higher absent humans (why would we care in this instance since the entire concern regarding the effects on humankind is not clear), so put some numbers around that. What were cattle growth rates prior humanity's upsurge in demand for beef? What did those growth rates look like prior/post the upsurge? What the populations look like in the past vs. today?

 

[Liminal]

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

Plants need CO2 to survive.....so treating CO2 like it's a poison is nonsensical at the very least.

Not the point of thread either. So what do you think, have volcanoes changed global weather patterns in the past, or not?

 

[skookerasbil]

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

Plants need CO2 to survive.....so treating CO2 like it's a poison is nonsensical at the very least.

Not the point of thread either. So what do you think, have volcanoes changed global weather patterns in the past, or not?

Irrelevant s0n...........you're not getting it. Internet debates about this shit are ghey........virtual pissing contests.

THIS is the only thing that matters in the real world >>>

[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pew-report-climate-change.jpg.html'][/URL]


[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pew-report-climate-change.jpg.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/pew-report-climate-change.jpg[/IMG][/URL]']
']

[/URL]']Nobody cares about cow farts, volcano's or global warming!!![/URL]





[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/11902bk.png.html][/URL][/URL]

 

[Kosh]

Human activities have shown to be less than one percent of the CO2 on the Earth.

Which would make anyone with any independent thought to wonder why the AGW is such a big deal.

However I am sure that the AGW cult will try and explain it away with their religious dogma.

 

[skookerasbil]

duh

 

[mudwhistle]

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

Plants need CO2 to survive.....so treating CO2 like it's a poison is nonsensical at the very least.

Not the point of thread either. So what do you think, have volcanoes changed global weather patterns in the past, or not?

Yes.....a cloud of thick ash that spread across 5 states laying several inches of it on them and eventually spread a cloud around the world had great effect on global weather patterns after Mount St Helens blew up.

 

[Liminal]

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

Plants need CO2 to survive.....so treating CO2 like it's a poison is nonsensical at the very least.

Not the point of thread either. So what do you think, have volcanoes changed global weather patterns in the past, or not?

Irrelevant s0n...........you're not getting it. Internet debates about this shit are ghey........virtual pissing contests.

THIS is the only thing that matters in the real world >>>



']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']
']Nobody cares about cow farts, volcano's or global warming!!![/URL]





[/URL]

I can tell how much you don't care because of how often you tell people what they don't care about.

 

[Kosh]

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

Plants need CO2 to survive.....so treating CO2 like it's a poison is nonsensical at the very least.

Not the point of thread either. So what do you think, have volcanoes changed global weather patterns in the past, or not?

Irrelevant s0n...........you're not getting it. Internet debates about this shit are ghey........virtual pissing contests.

THIS is the only thing that matters in the real world >>>



']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']
']Nobody cares about cow farts, volcano's or global warming!!![/URL]





[/URL]

I can tell how much you don't care because of how often you tell people what they don't care about.

You mean like how the AGW cult tells people that they should care about the world climate when humans have zero control over it?

 

[Liminal]

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

Plants need CO2 to survive.....so treating CO2 like it's a poison is nonsensical at the very least.

Not the point of thread either. So what do you think, have volcanoes changed global weather patterns in the past, or not?

Irrelevant s0n...........you're not getting it. Internet debates about this shit are ghey........virtual pissing contests.

THIS is the only thing that matters in the real world >>>



']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']
']Nobody cares about cow farts, volcano's or global warming!!![/URL]





[/URL]

I can tell how much you don't care because of how often you tell people what they don't care about.

You mean like how the AGW cult tells people that they should care about the world climate when humans have zero control over it?

Cult? I have no idea what you're babbling about.

 

[skookerasbil]

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

Plants need CO2 to survive.....so treating CO2 like it's a poison is nonsensical at the very least.

Not the point of thread either. So what do you think, have volcanoes changed global weather patterns in the past, or not?

Irrelevant s0n...........you're not getting it. Internet debates about this shit are ghey........virtual pissing contests.

THIS is the only thing that matters in the real world >>>



']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']
']Nobody cares about cow farts, volcano's or global warming!!![/URL]





[/URL]

I can tell how much you don't care because of how often you tell people what they don't care about.

What can I say..........Im a bottom line guy. Philisophical banter is ghey.

 

[Liminal]

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

Plants need CO2 to survive.....so treating CO2 like it's a poison is nonsensical at the very least.

Not the point of thread either. So what do you think, have volcanoes changed global weather patterns in the past, or not?

Irrelevant s0n...........you're not getting it. Internet debates about this shit are ghey........virtual pissing contests.

THIS is the only thing that matters in the real world >>>



']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']

[/URL]']
']Nobody cares about cow farts, volcano's or global warming!!![/URL]





[/URL]

I can tell how much you don't care because of how often you tell people what they don't care about.

What can I say..........Im a bottom line guy. Philisophical banter is ghey.

No worry there; no one will ever accuse you of being a philosopher.