[gambiting]

>>Detonating nukes and releasing several gigatons of CO2 is more dangerous than supervulcano.

Eh? You are aware that if Yellowstone were to erupt it would literally mean the destruction of the United States. How is "defusing" the vulcano by detonating nukes "more dangerous" exactly?

>>Naturally released CO2 is harmless.

Again, atmosphere doesn't care - CO2 is CO2. Yes it doesn't count towards calculations that we currently do to model climate predictions, but it's not harmless, and a supervulcano event will fuck everything up, it doesn't magically stop having an effect just because it's natural.

[zoe4883]

How is that not positive? Drilling means gigatons of new CO2 emmisions.

Natural eruption would considerably reduce man made CO2 emmisions in near future. And nuclear winter from dust could stop global warming!

[gambiting]

Ah, so you were being facetious then. Should have said at the beginning, would have saved us some time and you the downvotes.

[bashinator]

> Natural eruption would considerably reduce man made CO2 emmisions in near future.

I imagine this is technically accurate, as an eruption of for example Yellowstone would utterly destroy most human civilization in North America.

[brohee]

https://www.vox.com/2014/9/5/6108169/yellowstone-supervolcan...

Definitely impactful but not civilization ending.