Why are you intentionally maintaining an ignorant stance on this issue after a number of posters have shown you why you are wrong?
It's what he does. You see, he operates on a much higher plane and we ignorant few can't grasp the game he is playing. He says something stupid, people respond with the best of intentions, and rather then admit he was wrong and stupid, he pretends it was some little game or test and that the person who is factually correct is really stupid because they took his bait. He's a troll in the most egregious sense. Best to ignore him.
People are saying CO2 from a volcano doesn't do anything but man CO2 does. That's just ridiculous. If a major eruption happens, it can dump more CO2 than man contributes in 10 years. I'm just pointing that out. Now - do people want to really make a case, then better make a real case. I'm tired of all this dribble that gets passed on as science.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliography/2002/soden0201.pdf ...shows why your volcano issue is a nonstarter.
Ironically in this irrelevant tangent about volcanoes you happen to be drilling yourself a very deep hole from which you cannot emerge. Let us know what the magma is like down there.
The fact is that volcanoes emit CO2. So does CO2 contribute to global warming or not? Make up your mind.
Actually, nobody said that. Please define "major eruption." According to scientific consensus, normal volcanic activity is not a cause of climate change. It would be more productive if you were explicit about what "dribble" is being passed off as science. The only discourse of that kind I see here is from those who deny that human activity is the primary cause of climate change. Also, it would be good for you to think about the difference between a system at equilibrium and one that is radically changing due to unsustainable practices.
Good god, its like talking to a wall sometimes. CO2 promotes warming. It's part of the reason why we're alive. You need to have an atmosphere to trap heat necessary to make Earth habitable. Otherwise, this planet would be like Mars. HOWEVER, too much CO2 is bad. The Earth generally has a stable balance of CO2 created by the Earth and taken away by wildlife. Humans, however, have managed to screw up that balance by introducing an excess of CO2 that has promoted a level of warmth in the planet that is producing dangerous results. Also, unlike volcanoes which are generally one time incidents that occur every few years, manmade CO2 has risen exponentially and continues to grow. The planet has built in feedback systems that minimize the impacts of things like sudden bursts in CO2 produced by volcanoes. (Take the ozone layer for example, the Montreal Protocol banned most CFCs and now the ozone layer is healing itself). I thought Sam's curry analogy would have done the trick for a fellow Indian but apparently not.
You emit CO2 also as well as methane and other gases. However compared to man-made industrial and commerical emissions, your natural contribution is negligible, just like volcanic emissions. Even if it weren't, there is no proof that your incremental emissions were responsible for any significant globabl warming. You are essentially telling us that if you eat an additional plate of deep fried samosas every day on top of your normal diet without adjusting your excecise or calorie intake, you will not gain weight or suffer the associated health risks. We are patiently trying to explain to you two concepts 1. volcanos produce comparatively little CO2, and 2. the concept of marginal cost, as well as the concept of balance in a complex system w/inputs and outputs. These are concepts that you have failed to understand. FOr a pretendian, you sure do seem to be craptastic at science. Perhaps you should become a pretendonesian or a pretendamaican and come back as "Los Angeleno"
But it doesn't matter what the source of the CO2 is - which is my point. To say that CO2 from volcanoes is somehow beneficial but CO2 from man is not is ridculous as an argument. Co2 is Co2. You can't say that the earth is balancing out volcanic CO2. No one actually knows how much co2 is released by volcanoes. You don't know how that equilibrium plays out.
University of California: Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide per year while man's activities contribute about 10 billion tons per year. New Yorker = pwned by the UC system. Score one for public universities.
There's no definitive proof to say that volcano CO2 is not contributing to global warming and is being balanced out. That's simply an assumption...there's no way to proof that. Total speculation. You can say volcanoes are contributing less CO2, but for all you know, the warming trend the past century, which began before industrialization, may in face be a result of volcanic activity. Man-mad CO2 is merely a fraction of the CO2 released into the atmosphere....less than 3%. So if small differences matter - than clearly so does volcanoes. you can't simply say one thing matters and another doesn't because it's "natural"
That's an estimate done in 1991, but no one knows for sure. Additionally, that 110 million tons might have been the "tipping point" that started this warming trend over a 100 years ago.
You jsut said that marginal additions of people to CO2 didn't make any difference. Now you are saying that the marginal addition of volcanos do make a difference - which is of course wrong insofar as volcanos were not "added" to anything, they simply have been contributing vital CO2 to the atmosphere for billions of years. conclusion: you are a tard. No, the IPCC and the US Geological Survey among others have established that this is not true.
