Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Boomer

(4,405 posts)
3. Please share more!
Sun Jun 28, 2020, 10:58 AM
Jun 2020

I'm curious how he would describe the volcano scenario and its effects.

I'm assuming that a volcano would eject enough debris into the atmosphere to cool down the planet, but that's a short-term effect. It's only masking the underlying rise in carbon. Eventually the particles are washed out of the atmosphere and we're back to a hellish reality.

If the volcano's "nuclear winter" killed a substantial portion of our population -- let's say 2/3 or even 3/4 -- our carbon emissions would be lowered to bare subsistence level. But we're already at the point where feedback loops, such as melting permafrost, are emitting both carbon and methane, so a drop in human contributions is not going to stop climate change. At most, it would just slow down the progression.

So I don't see how a supervolcano changes the outcome. It seems like it would just add an unexpected plot twist before the inevitable finale.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»The Dismal Science On Cli...»Reply #3