No, they don't know the exact number of volcanoes on Earth, that is an asinine statement.
Sorry they know the exact number of eruptive volcanoes of the past 70 years, but as an eruptive volcano releases more than 500 times the amount of CO2 the not eruptive one release, unless there is more than 5000 times more unerupting volcanoes than eruptive ones it's enough to make an excellent estimation.
They also don't even know the exact emissions from the very small handful of volcanoes they actually do test. They take small samples and estimate. When making estimations based on a very small data set within a very small number of actual volcanoes, the estimates will be nowhere near accurate.
Where do you take that from? They simply estimate the amount of CO2 released on average by active volcanoes everyday since 2011! How is that not precise? And I answered you above concerning the number of volcanoes.
You even said yourself they can't be precise yet you are pretending the estimates are magically accurate some how in the same breath.
Nothing is precise in science. Everything has some kind of innacuracy that's the very point of Quantum Physics.
Difference is you're actually claiming they're not wrong, but wrong by an order of magnitude of more than 10 000. That's how wrong they should be in order to make your claim true (claim that you absolutely didn't prove btw).
P.S. I was not offering you my friendship, I was just addressing you as the communist you are.
I'm no more communist that you're "educated". It's not because your limited brain can only separate the world into two parts, the red evil communists and the blue good capitalists that the world is actually divided that way
So you are telling me they track every erupting volcano on earth, even those deep under the ocean? Sure that sounds realistic
The amount of greenhouse gasses released from volcanoes varies greatly depending on the surrounding geology, therefore wide scale estimates based on a small number of inaccurate samples is not anything near precise. If you spent more than 5 minutes reading about the subject you would know this. I wouldn't call that anything at all near an "excellent estimation".
estimate = not precise, because it is an ESTIMATE ie a GUESS, a guess that is wide open to manipulation and bias BTW because there is NO PROOF, just a tiny sample. I got that from science. You should try it.
Plenty of things are accurate in science, its called EMPIRICAL DATA, of which the global warming alarmist crowd consistently lacks. You sure do have plenty of theories though wide open to being molded by your biases that you can pretend are scientific. Speaking of proof, why don't you source your claim that "they know the exact number of eruptive volcanoes of the past 70 years".
I am not sure which document I am supposed to use to source the fact that we DON'T know about and track all erupting volcanoes. Maybe I should look it up in the "Things We Don't Know Encyclopedia". Instead of demanding I prove a negative, why don't you try proving any of your claims about data you claim exists. Any evidence I present to you about the data not existing will simply be ignored because there is no way to prove with 100% certainty to you that it does NOT exist, short of you learning how science and empirical data works in reality. Again if you spent more than 5 minutes reading about the subject you would know that knowing every fucking erupting volcano on earth is impossible with current technology and resources. BTW I call you a communist because you espouse communist values regardless of how conscious you are of it or not. Based on your previous posts I would guess you aren't conscious of much.
