I have never heard anyone suggest that we cap all existing volcanos , because they by far are the largest contributers of carbon and pollution to the atmosphere , way more than man , by 90 percent . Whats up big thinkers ? Has no one ever presented this view before , and why not ? It's totally rational , but always discounted in the discussion , why is that ? Would someone please present one rational and factual presentation to all the bs accourded to this global warming crap ? Hype is all Al Gore and his "GREEN MACHINE" can provoke . His facts blame man for all the warming , but the average temp was warmer before 1940 , this was before aerosols , and most modern comforts were developed .
Bookmark/Search this post with:
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The average temperature may have been warmer before 1940 (before, as you said, aerosol was invented and implemented into daily life), but you also have to remember a couple factors: 1- the population was lower then, and 2- people were a lot less efficient about the things they did (i.e. coal-burning, inefficient car engines, etc).
I don't have time to do the research, but wouldn't capping off volcanos take a lot of energy? I mean, if one of them were to erupt, it would take a lot of energy and a lot of ridiculously resilient materials to resist and sustain that eruption. Not to mention, that energy has to go somewhere. Won't that cause more earthquakes or gas buildup that would leak into groundwater or something?
(1) CO2 emissions from volcanoes are about 1/150th the amount of anthropogenic (human-caused) CO2 emissions.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/volcanos-emit-more-co2.html
(2) It is warmer now than it was in the 1940's
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHANGE/ipcc2001_figs/fig3.gif
The red line shows the recorded surface temperatures.
Here is another graph over a prolonged time period showing the RAPID recent rise in temperature:
http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/images/global_warming.jpg
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
Evolution says that we share a common ancestor with a jackass. It does not give us license to act like one.
See, I suspected such a discrepancy, but I have been staring at a computer since 9AM so I was not about to look into it further.
We aren't looking at a small rise in CO2 from the industrial revolution. CO2 quite literally jumps straight up, like a vertical line.
We can also measure the isotope of CO2 and know if was from industrial combustion.
Although volcanoes are nowhere near as high as human contributions, it wouldn't matter if they were. The reason CO2 has jumped so much is because the environment had reached an equilibrium over millions of years. Any added contribution repeated every year cannot be reabsorbed so it just gets added to the atmosphere.
The ice glaciers did not start to melt at such a fast rate until the 1920's or something. Mount Kilimanjaro has glaciers which are near the summit of its volcano, yet it lasted until this century and results show that it will be gone by around the year 2017?! Obviously, humans do increase the pollution usage and create other pollutions such as acid rain.
This is probably a good point to have a skeptic address. We know the age of the ice sheets we see melting today. Some are hundreds of thousands of years old.
How could this warming be part of a common cycle if we are losing ice that has lasted for nearly a million years?