putting enough aerosol into the atmosphere to have a tangible effect on terrestrial albedo and global temperatures
Emphasis on the important part to help your comprehension.
Or are you really lining up to pivot to "stratospheric aerosol injections are safe because they don't do the one job they were designed to do"? Because that is as hilarious as it is embarrassing.
Oh look an eruption that just scrapes under the classification of supereruption, and an abberent eruption that released 10x more SO2 than is usual for an eruption of that size, and even then only had a local regional effect on temperatures because most of the SO2 didn't reach the stratosphere. (Local regional effects like killing 25% of the population of Iceland in a famine, so safe!)
What a stunning sample selection of one edge case and one misrepresentation of regional cooling as global cooling (and which was still disastrous)
You "you don't need a 7 ton shell, look, a 6 ton shell once barely did it. See, regular guns can do it too"
God, you don't communicate with real people very often do you?
When people say "rabbits are not predators, they won't eat your pigs" they mean that is the typical state of affairs, not that it's literally never happened. "well akshually there was this one time a rabbit with a growth hormone issue caught rabies and bit a sow's ear off" doesn't prove they're wrong, it just proves you're autistic or desperate.
Of the ~3000 recorded eruptions in the last century only 1 managed to cause a just barely measurable global temperature drop. And that one was on the very top end of the scale before hitting super eruption.
My statement is 99.7% accurate across all instances, and you cling to your 0.3% edge case screaming about cope, lol.
Emphasis on the important part to help your comprehension.
Or are you really lining up to pivot to "stratospheric aerosol injections are safe because they don't do the one job they were designed to do"? Because that is as hilarious as it is embarrassing.
Oh I read it just fine, dumb-dumb.
Normal volcano eruptions tangibly effect the global temperature. Volcanoes, not supervolcano eruption. That was a large eruption, sure, but the world didn't end. No mass extinction, not even close.
You should just man up and admit you were wrong about these things. It'll do wonders for your mental health to not have to pretend to yourself.
Oh look an eruption that just scrapes under the classification of supereruption, and an abberent eruption that released 10x more SO2 than is usual for an eruption of that size, and even then only had a local regional effect on temperatures because most of the SO2 didn't reach the stratosphere. (Local regional effects like killing 25% of the population of Iceland in a famine, so safe!)
What a stunning sample selection of one edge case and one misrepresentation of regional cooling as global cooling (and which was still disastrous)
You "you don't need a 7 ton shell, look, a 6 ton shell once barely did it. See, regular guns can do it too"
"I was just barely wrong" haha, cope idiot.
God, you don't communicate with real people very often do you?
When people say "rabbits are not predators, they won't eat your pigs" they mean that is the typical state of affairs, not that it's literally never happened. "well akshually there was this one time a rabbit with a growth hormone issue caught rabies and bit a sow's ear off" doesn't prove they're wrong, it just proves you're autistic or desperate.
Of the ~3000 recorded eruptions in the last century only 1 managed to cause a just barely measurable global temperature drop. And that one was on the very top end of the scale before hitting super eruption.
My statement is 99.7% accurate across all instances, and you cling to your 0.3% edge case screaming about cope, lol.