The volcano that erupted in Iceland released more carbon emmisions than the human race could put out in 200 years.
English
-
Is that supposed to make things better? Also i just looked up the volcanic gasses [quote]The principal components of volcanic gases are water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur either as sulfur dioxide (SO2) (high-temperature volcanic gases) or hydrogen sulfide (H2S) (low-temperature volcanic gases), nitrogen, argon, helium, neon, methane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Other compounds detected in volcanic gases are oxygen (meteoric), hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen bromide, nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur hexafluoride, carbonyl sulfide, and organic compounds. Exotic trace compounds include mercury, halocarbons (including CFCs), and halogen oxide radicals.[/quote] So the whole thing is not carbon. Do you still stand by your claim?
-
It has carbon in it, so yeah his point stands fairly well
-
Actually if you read the whole discussion you would actually probably want to edit your post. If you choose to defend his argument (which he already bailed on i presume) you are free to defend it
-
It has carbox dioxide. If it had enough to overcome the entire industrial revolution, and all of modern cars, it must've been really, really big. You're acting as if the volcano's explosion was 1% Co2.
-
Edited by ReignofSpartain: 10/28/2016 1:42:47 AMTake note. His post and numbers has to do with sulfur dioxide. All the numbers you must be refrencing does not apply to your argument at all Also [quote]This isn’t the first time this type of claim has come up — scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey addressed similar rumors during the 2007 eruption of Kilauea in Hawaii. It’s true that erupting volcanoes do emit some carbon dioxide, one of the “greenhouse gases” that contributes to global climate change. But according to USGS, human activities release at least a hundred times more CO2 every year than all the world’s volcanoes combined. Published estimates of the gas emissions from all volcanoes in the world range from 123 million to 378 million metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. Humans haven’t produced that little since the 19th century. Carbon dioxide isn’t a major output of volcanic eruptions. In the case of Iceland’s Eyjafjallajokull volcano, which began erupting in March 2010 and entered an explosive phase in April 2010, one study found that less than 15 percent of the gas given off in the pre-explosive phase was CO2 – the majority was water vapor. For some other volcanoes, the proportion of CO2 is even lower. Still, that accounted for 150,000 to 300,000 tons of CO2 per day at the height of the Eyjafjallajokull eruption, according to wire reports. But the European Union’s air travel, which was shut down for days during the eruption, accounts for 3 percent of the EU’s total CO2 emissions, which according to the European Environment Agency was about 4,089 billion tons in 2008. That means air travel in Europe gives off about 340,000 tons of CO2 per day. The shutdown of air travel in much of Europe during the first week of the explosive eruption would have offset, if not greatly outpaced, the CO2 Eyjafjallajokull produced during that ti[/quote] [url]http://www.factcheck.org/2010/06/eruption-corruption/[/url] [spoiler]Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.[/spoiler] [url]http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html[/url] USGS (us geological survey) and factcheck.org But go ahead and try again :) I dont mind teaching you.
-
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/19197-icelands-volcanic-pollution-dwarfs-all-of-europes-human-emissions [quote]The sulfur dioxide (SO2) emitted from the Holuhraun eruption has reached up to 60,000 tons per day and averaged close to 20,000 tons since it began,” notes Pall Stefanson, in a September 25 report for Iceland Review Online. “For comparison, all the SO2 pollution in Europe, from industries, energy production, traffic and house heating, etc., amounts to 14,000 tons per day.[/quote] I do.
-
The american opinion published magazine? Wow ok ill play along. For starters idk if you havent noticed but they are talking about [b][u]SULFUR DIOXIDE[/u][/b]. I thought you said carbon? Then why source sulfur? Its questionable why they talk about sulfur dioxide then chose to insert a person saying how carbon dioxide is great and necessary(at the end). Its almost like they didnt bother to notice that switch (or typo?) like you did. Sulfur dioxide has nothing to do with the carbon dioxide and bicarbonate reactions i was talking about. He is right about the lage quantities of carbon to how much lower it is now(it is in my post in relation to other planets) as they have a much higher carbon content in the atmosphere compared to earth because if our carbon scrubbers (oceans). Again my post had nothing to do with atmosphere. It is pH of the oceans. Something that can greatly damage our oceans and their ecosystems. I dont see how your post applies. Also if we were talking about sulfur dioxide then are you trying to justify emissions because nature does it too? Not a very hefty defense.
-
Yes, I made a mistake and my correction lies in the article. Also, by claiming that an article is a (((discredited))) source because you don't agree with the science is just plain ignorant. Slushat, I get it. You don't understand carbon and how it is a crucial element in creating [i][u][b]life[/b][/u][/i]. The fact that people like you sit here and think the world is being destroyed by something that is naturally occuring in a solar cycle is almost as bad as the Y2K wackos.
-
You are right carbon is a crucial element of life. In low doses. Organics do not thrive in carbon environments. Plants can die from it too (just like humans can die from too much oxygen or pure oxygen causing blindness in babies (we dont do that anymore) Atleast you were humble enough about the article although you killed it when you compared my post to a social superstition with no science behind it other than the fear of a year. I dont know who you were really trying to persuade with that (other than yourself). Dont patronize about me refferring to your source. I read it didnt i? I discussed it did i not? Atleast i entertained your media. Which is more than you did because it doesnt seem like you cared to entertain the science within my original post.