• WoahWoah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 hours ago

    I don’t think you’re accounting for the massive difference in scale when considering a super-volcanic eruption. It would cause global famine and a massive die-off of most species including humans. If Yellowstone went off, for instance, we would be living under volcanic winter for at least a decade. It would release something like 1,000 gigatons of CO2, which would be roughly equivalent to all human caused CO2 since the industrial revolution, and it would do it all at once.

    By way of example, the Toba supervolcano was so devastating and caused so much death it literally created a pronounced genetic bottleneck in the history of human genome.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      The article is not referencing a catastrophic eruption. Super volcanoes don’t have to end the world, they can, but they don’t have to.

      • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Yeah, it would mostly be the sulfur and volcanic winter. And the famine.

        The article is talking about supervolcanoes, and you’re talking about regular volcanic eruptions. I’m clarifying the difference in magnitude.

        • BreadstickNinja@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          Well, no. The article is not talking about the kind of catastrophic supervolcano eruption that you are. It’s talking about small-scale emissions, 4000-5000 tons per day from a single supervolcano crater in Italy, which totals less than 2 million tons per year or about 0.005% of global CO2 inventory.

          You introduced the concept of a catastrophic supervolcano eruption for the first time. That wasn’t the topic of the article or the comment chain I responded to.