
How much CO2 does a single volcano emit? - finchisko
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-much-co2-does-a-single-volcano-emit-bbc045be015d
======
fragsworth
TL;DR: Volcanism contributes 0.645 billion tons of CO2 per year. Humans
contribute 29 billion tons per year. The impact of volcanism is insignificant
compared to the impact of humans.

~~~
dcawrey
I remember having quite a few arguments with climate change denialists
claiming it was natural causes for the climate change we're seeing. It's a
pretty good argument until you actually look at the numbers like this.

~~~
jmnicolas
What bothers me with climate change 'apologists' is that they act all
religious when it comes to the science of climate, but don't do a single thing
in their life to reduce their footprint (and even if they do it's so
insignificant it doesn't matter). It's like they think it's enough to convince
people that climate change is real and man made to save the planet (it's not).

Myself I'm a climate change 'whateverist' ;-) I don't have the intellectual
means to understand the science for myself and won't trust the scientists on
their words (especially when it's the media that is talking for them).

The way I see it : if climate change is really going to happen like they say
we're doomed. Even if it's man made, humans won't change until it's too late,
so why bother having arguments with people, do you really think they're gonna
abandon their way of life just because you're right ?

~~~
s_kilk
> Even if it's man made, humans won't change until it's too late, so why
> bother having arguments with people, do you really think they're gonna
> abandon their way of life just because you're right ?

Within living memory globe-spanning Fascism seemed inevitable. A bit later,
Nuclear annihilation seemed practically guaranteed. Why resist when you can
just go with the flow eh?

~~~
Para2016
Yea bud, I'm sure you're out there "resisting".

------
nxc18
I love this article but in the comments I'm reminded of an issue in the
discord around climate change.

It seems to be an issue of 'denial' and 'belief' to many - the same terms we
use for religious belief.

We owe it to ourselves to treat doubt about climate change like any other
valid doubt (see geology pre plate tectonics for an example of mainstream
science being in short supply of doubt) and to stop treating climate change as
a matter of belief.

'Believing' in climate change turns it into an opinion - the type of opinion
that can never be truly right or wrong; "you have your opinions, I have mine."

~~~
epistasis
We owe it to ourselves to treat doubt about particle physics like any other
valid doubt, perhaps?

There is no "valid" doubt about mainstream particle physics, or climate
change, etc. because those fields embrace that doubt and then try to eliminate
it.

Equating climate science with early stage geology is extremely ignorant of the
data and analysis that happens in climate science. Drive-by smearing like that
should not be acceptable to you, as a healthily skeptical person, because you
cannot back up that claim. Such skepticism must be applied evenly and not
merely against one direction of claims.

~~~
jamez1
The models climate science have created have had very little success in
forecasting the climate. Healthy skepticism would doubt the analysis.

Note, there is a consensus around the narrative that humans have an impact
(which is quite different from the analysis of that human impact). These are
totally separate and you seem to have them confused.

~~~
Oletros
> The models climate science have created have had very little success in
> forecasting the climate

Can you give us some sources for that claim?

------
jlebrech
won't global warming merely make humans go extinct, the planet will recover
and host new life.

------
finchisko
I've heard so many times, how human contribution of CO2 is insignificant
comparing to: Sun (already debunked by NASA), then Volcanoes. And just
recently, that oceans are the biggest contributor. I guess this will be
debunked soon too. And even if not, how deniers can explain constant raise of
CO2 ppm starting from industrial era? And how many more myths has to be
debunked, before we get serious about climate change and start to act
accordingly?

~~~
CptJamesCook
How do you explain temperatures dropping from 1940-1975 during the same time
that CO2 in the atmosphere was increasing faster than ever before?

~~~
finchisko
To sum up, anthropogenic sulfur emissions appear to be the main cause of the
mid-century cooling. These emissions decreased the mean global surface
temperature by approximately 0.5°C during this period, while anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions caused a warming of approximately 0.4°C. Therefore,
even though greenhouse gas emissions continued to have a warming effect during
this period, it was more than offset (hidden) by anthropogenic aerosol
emissions, until those emissions were brought under control by government
intervention while greenhouse gas emissions continued to increase unabated.

[https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-
cen...](https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-
advanced.htm)

------
peter303
Geologist Peter Ward fears too little CO2 in a future Earth. Below 100 ppm
photosynthesis ceases. Plants and animals all die. Only alternative energy
organism survive.

Earth likely began with 50% CO2 (like Mars and Venus). By the time life
emerged from thebsea is was only a couple percent; just 0.04% (400 ppm) now.
During ice age advances its been as low as 180 ppm.

As the Earth cools off, there will be less plate tectonics and volconism to
replenish CO2. Ward predicts a half billion years or less for the CO2
apocalypse. If there still is sentient life then, there is an easy remedy. 98%
of near surface carbon is in limestone. Just burn enough limestone (as we
currently do for cement manufacture).

~~~
solipsism
An apocalypse half a billion years away? In what context does the word "fears"
make sense on that kind of scale?

If we're still around then, and still dependent on this planet, and haven't
transformed it into an entirely different ecosystem (all these _if_ s seem
incredibly unlikely), then as you say there are easy fixes that even we at our
current technological level could pull off.

So I'm not clear why Ward would "fear" this.

~~~
jamez1
The point is not to blindly class CO2 as good or evil.

~~~
solipsism
And why would that be a useful viewpoint today?

