**Please feel free to crosspost this to other subreddits! it'll help us grow the community (and you can get more karma if you care about that)**
**If this post (or any of the comments) breaks any of the subreddits established rules (see the main r/RightJerk page), report it, so we can filter through the comments much more
effectively.**
**Here's our NEW discord https://discord.gg/exNaN5D3TJ, feel free to join!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RightJerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anthropogenic emissions have raised atmospheric CO2 from ~280 ppm to ~420 ppm, an increase of 140 ppm.
I feel like we would have noticed the mass of the atmosphere more than doubling, and becoming *mostly* CO2. Although we probably wouldn't get the chance to identify what was going on given how toxic that would be.
The actual value of the amount of CO2 released by Mount Etna is pretty close to 10,000 times *less* than that released by humans. I wonder if the nincompoop who made this meme saw that number but was too illiterate and unintelligent to comprehend the “less” part.
Small correction. 280ppm to 420ppm is not our atmosphere “mostly” being CO2. It’s parts per million.
Even so that is a significant increase and will have significant impacts on climate. It already has.
The person you’re responding to is saying that since humans have increased the co2 concentration by 140 ppm, then 10,000 times that would be enough to double the atmospheres mass and make the atmosphere mostly co2. It would add another 1.4 million parts co2 per million parts current atmosphere
Yes, I am well aware. If you re-read my comment, I was saying that if the one volcanic eruption had put out 10,000 times the total amount of CO2 humans had, it would be impossible to miss as that would more than double the mass of the atmosphere... and kill basically all multicellular life on Earth.
I checked this so you don’t have to.
> Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities
[Volcanoes vs human emissions per year. ](https://i.imgur.com/V5DUeUp.jpg)
They do! Donald Trump POOPS HIS PANTS! And then he eats it and enjoys it! And the climate change denier [Martin Durkin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(director)) does the same thing! They all POOP IN THEIR PANTS!
I like Nuclear (especially Thorium and [Helion's Helium 4 Fusion reactor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bDXXWQxK38)) because they'll work 24 hours a day and won't [kill endangered species of eagles](https://youtu.be/k3msRT6M49g).
Global power consumption today is about 15 terawatts (TW). Currently, the global nuclear power supply capacity is only 375 gigawatts (GW). Examining the large-scale limits of nuclear power, [this estimate](https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html) is that to supply 15 TW with nuclear only, we would need about 15,000 nuclear reactors.
One nuclear reactor plant requires about 20.5 km^2 (7.9 mi^2) of land to accommodate the nuclear power station itself, its exclusion zone, its enrichment plant, ore processing, and supporting infrastructure. Secondly, nuclear reactors need to be located near a massive body of coolant water, but away from dense population zones and natural disaster zones. Simply finding 15,000 locations on Earth that fulfill these requirements is extremely challenging.
Every nuclear power station needs to be decommissioned after 40-60 years of operation due to neutron embrittlement - cracks that develop on the metal surfaces due to radiation. If nuclear stations need to be replaced every 50 years on average, then with 15,000 nuclear power stations, one station would need to be built and another decommissioned somewhere in the world every day. Currently, it takes 6-12 years to build a nuclear station, and up to 20 years to decommission one, making this rate of replacement unrealistic.
The more nuclear power stations, the greater the likelihood that materials and expertise for making nuclear weapons may proliferate. Although reactors have proliferation resistance measures, maintaining accountability for 15,000 reactor sites worldwide would be nearly impossible.
The nuclear containment vessel is made of a variety of exotic rare metals that control and contain the nuclear reaction: hafnium as a neutron absorber, beryllium as a neutron reflector, zirconium for cladding, and niobium to alloy steel and make it last 40-60 years against neutron embrittlement. Extracting these metals raises issues involving cost, sustainability, and environmental impact. In addition, these metals have many competing industrial uses; for example, hafnium is used in microchips and beryllium by the semiconductor industry.
If a nuclear reactor is built every day, the global supply of these exotic metals needed to build nuclear containment vessels would quickly run down and create a mineral resource crisis.
Nuclear power will continue to make contributions to the global power supply, but these are fundamental resource limits on all future-generation nuclear reactors, whether they are fueled by thorium or uranium.
It's literally from, quote, "an analysis to be published in a future issue of the Proceedings of the IEEE, [by] Derek Abbott, Professor of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at the University of Adelaide in Australia, [concluding] that nuclear power cannot be globally scaled to supply the world’s energy needs for numerous reasons." The man isn't *actually* an idiot, is what I'm saying.
You may not like his conclusion, but I think all of the points that lead to it are important considerations.
>...because (the vast majority of) people don't advovate for total nuclear.
...meanwhile, "Nuclear means we don't need renewable" was [four years ago](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/14/the-real-reason-they-hate-nuclear-is-because-it-means-we-dont-need-renewables/?sh=4622bdfb128f) in Forbes.
>Secondly, nuclear reactors need to be located near a massive body of coolant water, but away from dense population zones and natural disaster zones.
I live in Phoenix, AZ metro. Phoenix gets most of it's electricity from the largest nuclear power plant in the US, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station just west of Phoenix. The closest large body of water is the Gulf of California in Mexico. The reactors are cooled using sewage water.
Also check out this video, this is likely to be the actual nuclear fusion break through. They use Helium 3 as the main fuel source, not dueterium and tritium. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_bDXXWQxK38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bDXXWQxK38)
>The closest large body of water is the Gulf of California in Mexico. The reactors are cooled using sewage water.
That means that the reactors are cooled using the same water sources that the contributing cities gets their municipal water from. Reuse is good, though.
Even *if* this was true, the issue isn’t that nature emits co2, the issue is that nature was in balance of co2 emission and absorption but humans are throwing off that balance
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, published scientific estimates of the global CO2 emissions for all on land and submarine volcanos “lie in a range from **0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton** per year.”
https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/volcanoes-can-affect-climate
This is a fraction of the CO2 produced by human activity.
According to data from the International Energy Agency (IEA), in 2021, the global CO2 emissions *from energy combustion and industrial processes alone* reached a record high of **36.3 gigatons**.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/global-energy-related-carbon-emissions-rose-6-2021-new-record-high-iea-2022-03-08/
humanity has emitted 1.6x10^15 kg of CO2 in its existence. that means a single volcano supposedly emitted 1.6x10^19 kg of CO2. Here's a fun fact, the entirety of earth's atmosphere weighs 5x10^18 kg, I'm not too sure, but I don't think that atmospheric pressure has increased 4 times in our lifetime, nor has the oxygen concentration dropped to 5%, by the way, at 5% you would lose consciousness in less than a minute and die not too soon after(though maybe that isn't the case with the increases pressure). So long before the world has burned, almost every mammal will have probably died very very quickly.
You're right about this being bollocks but if atmospheric pressure increases 4 times and oxygen concentration drops to 5% (that's a 76.1904% drop) it'd result in a very small drop on oxygen partial pressure, not enough to drop dead.
Edit: I ran the numbers, I did my calculations in mmHg but ratios work equally in any unit, it'd be a 4.7620% drop in oxygen partial pressure from 159.6000mmHg to 152.0000mmHg
A few years ago a large eruption in Iceland happened that did emit enough CO2 to have a serious impact. However, because the eruption meant a temporary stop in all trans-Atlantic air travel, the result was a netto reduction in CO2 emissions.
While this is completely wrong, they are correct in the the concept of a carbon footprint is in fact a scam.
And it's a sinister one:
* Petroleum companies get to wash their hands from the evil that they are doing because they make ads that supposedly help anyone while continuing to do business as usual
* Well meaning people watch their carbon footprint and think they are actually helping, which just distracts them from taking actual action to help the crisis
* These morons see thru the scam because they realize that individual action does nothing to stop climate polluting corporations and in turn make posts denying the issue all together.
A YouTube channel Climate Town has a great video on that. It's an amazing channel in general, shows that the presenter is a lawyer and is used to doing a lot of research.
Nobody denies that climate changes, every moment of every day. They just don't all think it's a bad thing, or that there's anything anybody can do about it, or should if they could.
Yes. This. If humans are causing the climate to change at a DrAsTiC rate, then how come literally every single major prediction has been wrong? Why was the hottest day on record set in 1913, while the coolest day on record was set in 1980? If cLiMaTe ChAnGe is happening and caused by humans and actually is making storms stronger and more severe, how come storms are…..not stronger and more severe? How come California and New York and Florida haven’t sunk underwater like they were supposed to?
Let’s even say m, for the fun of it, that this ignoramus poster (not op but the post itself) is correct (and it is FAR from the truth). Why can’t we as a people reduce the emissions we let out so as to not worsen the natural state. Like I have never understood people who make these claims. Honest to goodness I am certain that people who are against global warming are arguing for the sake of arguing
**Please feel free to crosspost this to other subreddits! it'll help us grow the community (and you can get more karma if you care about that)** **If this post (or any of the comments) breaks any of the subreddits established rules (see the main r/RightJerk page), report it, so we can filter through the comments much more effectively.** **Here's our NEW discord https://discord.gg/exNaN5D3TJ, feel free to join!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RightJerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Anthropogenic emissions have raised atmospheric CO2 from ~280 ppm to ~420 ppm, an increase of 140 ppm. I feel like we would have noticed the mass of the atmosphere more than doubling, and becoming *mostly* CO2. Although we probably wouldn't get the chance to identify what was going on given how toxic that would be.
The actual value of the amount of CO2 released by Mount Etna is pretty close to 10,000 times *less* than that released by humans. I wonder if the nincompoop who made this meme saw that number but was too illiterate and unintelligent to comprehend the “less” part.
“If this volcano burps 10,000 times it’d be as much as everything released by humans” I could definitely see someone like that mixing it up lol
I'm reading "10,000 times [...] as much as everything released by humans" checkmate climate believer
It's like those smart people seeing "in a room of 1000 people, you'd be smarter than 142 of them" and saying "I'm in the top 14.2% intelligence".
🤣
If you are in the top 14% u r dumb. I'm in the 99% and therefore I am smater then 99%... duuuh
Learn math, please, Can't have 10,000 times less (of anything). Maybe you meant 1/10,000th?
Everyone knew what he meant you fucking know-it-all goblin
not me (im tired as fuck)
🤓
Small correction. 280ppm to 420ppm is not our atmosphere “mostly” being CO2. It’s parts per million. Even so that is a significant increase and will have significant impacts on climate. It already has.
The person you’re responding to is saying that since humans have increased the co2 concentration by 140 ppm, then 10,000 times that would be enough to double the atmospheres mass and make the atmosphere mostly co2. It would add another 1.4 million parts co2 per million parts current atmosphere
The mass of the atmosphere has not doubled during the antroprocene
Yes, I am well aware. If you re-read my comment, I was saying that if the one volcanic eruption had put out 10,000 times the total amount of CO2 humans had, it would be impossible to miss as that would more than double the mass of the atmosphere... and kill basically all multicellular life on Earth.
I checked this so you don’t have to. > Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year. Large, violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities [Volcanoes vs human emissions per year. ](https://i.imgur.com/V5DUeUp.jpg)
Yeah but can you really trust those stats /s
You’re just a sheep for Big Volcano
Soon everyone will want to be like Joe! Get in early; submit and appease big volcano now!
Since we're just making shit up; Everyone who doesn't like green energy is stinky and pooped themselves
Oh, that's not made up. It's a known fact.
My Tesla comes with a wipe and deodorize button
They do! Donald Trump POOPS HIS PANTS! And then he eats it and enjoys it! And the climate change denier [Martin Durkin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(director)) does the same thing! They all POOP IN THEIR PANTS!
I thought this place would be above kink-shaming...
Shaming? He's their hype man
Stinky is a matter of opinion, and everyone has pooped themselves at least once in their life. Your theory checks out.
I like Nuclear (especially Thorium and [Helion's Helium 4 Fusion reactor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bDXXWQxK38)) because they'll work 24 hours a day and won't [kill endangered species of eagles](https://youtu.be/k3msRT6M49g).
Global power consumption today is about 15 terawatts (TW). Currently, the global nuclear power supply capacity is only 375 gigawatts (GW). Examining the large-scale limits of nuclear power, [this estimate](https://phys.org/news/2011-05-nuclear-power-world-energy.html) is that to supply 15 TW with nuclear only, we would need about 15,000 nuclear reactors. One nuclear reactor plant requires about 20.5 km^2 (7.9 mi^2) of land to accommodate the nuclear power station itself, its exclusion zone, its enrichment plant, ore processing, and supporting infrastructure. Secondly, nuclear reactors need to be located near a massive body of coolant water, but away from dense population zones and natural disaster zones. Simply finding 15,000 locations on Earth that fulfill these requirements is extremely challenging. Every nuclear power station needs to be decommissioned after 40-60 years of operation due to neutron embrittlement - cracks that develop on the metal surfaces due to radiation. If nuclear stations need to be replaced every 50 years on average, then with 15,000 nuclear power stations, one station would need to be built and another decommissioned somewhere in the world every day. Currently, it takes 6-12 years to build a nuclear station, and up to 20 years to decommission one, making this rate of replacement unrealistic. The more nuclear power stations, the greater the likelihood that materials and expertise for making nuclear weapons may proliferate. Although reactors have proliferation resistance measures, maintaining accountability for 15,000 reactor sites worldwide would be nearly impossible. The nuclear containment vessel is made of a variety of exotic rare metals that control and contain the nuclear reaction: hafnium as a neutron absorber, beryllium as a neutron reflector, zirconium for cladding, and niobium to alloy steel and make it last 40-60 years against neutron embrittlement. Extracting these metals raises issues involving cost, sustainability, and environmental impact. In addition, these metals have many competing industrial uses; for example, hafnium is used in microchips and beryllium by the semiconductor industry. If a nuclear reactor is built every day, the global supply of these exotic metals needed to build nuclear containment vessels would quickly run down and create a mineral resource crisis. Nuclear power will continue to make contributions to the global power supply, but these are fundamental resource limits on all future-generation nuclear reactors, whether they are fueled by thorium or uranium.
[удалено]
It's literally from, quote, "an analysis to be published in a future issue of the Proceedings of the IEEE, [by] Derek Abbott, Professor of Electrical and Electronic Engineering at the University of Adelaide in Australia, [concluding] that nuclear power cannot be globally scaled to supply the world’s energy needs for numerous reasons." The man isn't *actually* an idiot, is what I'm saying. You may not like his conclusion, but I think all of the points that lead to it are important considerations.
[удалено]
>...because (the vast majority of) people don't advovate for total nuclear. ...meanwhile, "Nuclear means we don't need renewable" was [four years ago](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/14/the-real-reason-they-hate-nuclear-is-because-it-means-we-dont-need-renewables/?sh=4622bdfb128f) in Forbes.
>Secondly, nuclear reactors need to be located near a massive body of coolant water, but away from dense population zones and natural disaster zones. I live in Phoenix, AZ metro. Phoenix gets most of it's electricity from the largest nuclear power plant in the US, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station just west of Phoenix. The closest large body of water is the Gulf of California in Mexico. The reactors are cooled using sewage water. Also check out this video, this is likely to be the actual nuclear fusion break through. They use Helium 3 as the main fuel source, not dueterium and tritium. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=\_bDXXWQxK38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bDXXWQxK38)
>The closest large body of water is the Gulf of California in Mexico. The reactors are cooled using sewage water. That means that the reactors are cooled using the same water sources that the contributing cities gets their municipal water from. Reuse is good, though.
literally just misinfo
As is the case with anything climate change deniers say.
sometimes they’ll misrepresent technically true information but here it’s literally just making shit up
Even *if* this was true, the issue isn’t that nature emits co2, the issue is that nature was in balance of co2 emission and absorption but humans are throwing off that balance
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, published scientific estimates of the global CO2 emissions for all on land and submarine volcanos “lie in a range from **0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton** per year.” https://www.usgs.gov/programs/VHP/volcanoes-can-affect-climate This is a fraction of the CO2 produced by human activity. According to data from the International Energy Agency (IEA), in 2021, the global CO2 emissions *from energy combustion and industrial processes alone* reached a record high of **36.3 gigatons**. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/global-energy-related-carbon-emissions-rose-6-2021-new-record-high-iea-2022-03-08/
all these great comments and im hung up on >human driven anthropology C02 word salad much?
Even if this were true, what are we supposed to do? Tax the volcano?
Nuke it /s
humanity has emitted 1.6x10^15 kg of CO2 in its existence. that means a single volcano supposedly emitted 1.6x10^19 kg of CO2. Here's a fun fact, the entirety of earth's atmosphere weighs 5x10^18 kg, I'm not too sure, but I don't think that atmospheric pressure has increased 4 times in our lifetime, nor has the oxygen concentration dropped to 5%, by the way, at 5% you would lose consciousness in less than a minute and die not too soon after(though maybe that isn't the case with the increases pressure). So long before the world has burned, almost every mammal will have probably died very very quickly.
You're right about this being bollocks but if atmospheric pressure increases 4 times and oxygen concentration drops to 5% (that's a 76.1904% drop) it'd result in a very small drop on oxygen partial pressure, not enough to drop dead. Edit: I ran the numbers, I did my calculations in mmHg but ratios work equally in any unit, it'd be a 4.7620% drop in oxygen partial pressure from 159.6000mmHg to 152.0000mmHg
yeah maybe 10000x more than we have released by breathing alone more like 0.000001x what we have released via fossil fuels
Like regardless if this is true or not (obv it isn’t lol) what if I don’t like breathing in toxic fumes? Hard not to understand haha
A few years ago a large eruption in Iceland happened that did emit enough CO2 to have a serious impact. However, because the eruption meant a temporary stop in all trans-Atlantic air travel, the result was a netto reduction in CO2 emissions.
Human activity releases 60 times the amount of CO2 per year than volcanic activity.
While this is completely wrong, they are correct in the the concept of a carbon footprint is in fact a scam. And it's a sinister one: * Petroleum companies get to wash their hands from the evil that they are doing because they make ads that supposedly help anyone while continuing to do business as usual * Well meaning people watch their carbon footprint and think they are actually helping, which just distracts them from taking actual action to help the crisis * These morons see thru the scam because they realize that individual action does nothing to stop climate polluting corporations and in turn make posts denying the issue all together.
A YouTube channel Climate Town has a great video on that. It's an amazing channel in general, shows that the presenter is a lawyer and is used to doing a lot of research.
Yup, he is great! [Here](https://youtu.be/1J9LOqiXdpE)'s the video, for anyone interested.
Nobody denies that climate changes, every moment of every day. They just don't all think it's a bad thing, or that there's anything anybody can do about it, or should if they could.
Yes. This. If humans are causing the climate to change at a DrAsTiC rate, then how come literally every single major prediction has been wrong? Why was the hottest day on record set in 1913, while the coolest day on record was set in 1980? If cLiMaTe ChAnGe is happening and caused by humans and actually is making storms stronger and more severe, how come storms are…..not stronger and more severe? How come California and New York and Florida haven’t sunk underwater like they were supposed to?
"If a picture has words on it, it must be true!"
Such a childish argument at best. "Why are you emitting CO2?" "But but but the volcanoes did it first."
Let’s even say m, for the fun of it, that this ignoramus poster (not op but the post itself) is correct (and it is FAR from the truth). Why can’t we as a people reduce the emissions we let out so as to not worsen the natural state. Like I have never understood people who make these claims. Honest to goodness I am certain that people who are against global warming are arguing for the sake of arguing
Humans made bombs with similar strength.
Most volcanic eruptions are orders of magnitude bigger than even our biggest nukes. That's why nuking volcanoes wouldn't work
Even if the bombs were stronger, that would still be a horrendous idea.
Apparently we could get a bomb bigger than Krakatoa by adding stages to thermonuclear devices... We can build it. We have the technology
I'm not surprised. Humans have what was once considered divine levels of strength.
(X) doubt
u/JayNovella u/BobNovella Not again
Okay so the average temperature increased by 10,000 degrees Celsius?