Your opinion not based on logic and founded by emotion says it's not, the objective scientific facts say it is
LOL!!
Nobody with a basic understanding of math would ever reach that conclusion
Carbon levels in the atmosphere have been 5x's higher than they are today have they?
Lets see if you can find a source for that claim
Climate and geography. Not a lot is known about the global climate during the Cambrian period, but the unusually high atmospheric carbon dioxide levels (about 15 times those of the present day) imply that the average temperature may have exceeded 120 degrees Fahrenheit.
~
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/PaleozoicEra/a/Cambrian-Period.htm
Cambrian CO2 levels: ~7000 ppm
Current CO2 levels: 380 ppm
~
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
http://www.academia.edu/439551/Global_ocean-atmosphere_change_across_the_Precambrian-Cambrian_transition
feeling dumb yet?
It's obvious to anyone reading your rants that you have zero to little understanding of how science works. People who understand how science works don't make the kinds of claims and statements you're making. I don't understand why you would rather continue to showcase that instead of just go learn about how it all actually works
"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."
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
[/quote][/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
funny how thats not what you will discover if you read these papers...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7492/full/nature13030.html
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JG001991/abstract;jsessionid=19E78308AD34367495D316C5A4502419.f02t04?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+Saturday,+7+June+from+10:00-15:00+BST+(05:00-10:00+EDT)+for+essential+maintenance
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24646998
ohh snap.
look at your statement above, you blithering twat,
"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."
you even had the unmitigated gall to bold it as if it means dick
"Ms. Werner and her colleagues found that Yellowstone's Mud Volcano area produced about 176,300 tons of carbon dioxide each year."
~
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/26/us/yellowstone-park-emits-tons-of-carbon-dioxide-study-finds.html
i had a paper that detailed how much CO2 yellowstone emits every year according to research from 2010, but i cant seem to find it now, so ill go with this one.
thats JUST the "Mud Volcanoe" are of JUST yellowstone.
add in the various geysers, hot springs, volcanoes, undersea vest fumaroles, seeping dormant volcanoes, etc etc etc and the number can get HUGE, and this has been going on day in and day out for millions of years.
but it's all just "Basline" so you can dismiss it.
you further confounded the issue by focussing on JUST "volcanic" CO2 rather than the all-encompassing "Geologic" CO2 which also includes the CO2 released by weathering of marble, dolomite, shale and other carboniferous rocks (which is not "anthropogenic") you also ignored the massive contribution by bacterium and animal production of CO2 from all life on earth.
you selected the ONE part of the whole you thought was weak and pretended that was the whole argument.
perhaps the wikipedia page on the next IPCC report will support your claims, but the IPCC report itself, will likely not.