We’re talking past each other.

There are two distinct categories of impacts: carbon dioxide emissions from volcanoes (occurring presently) and supervolcano eruptions (rare even on geologic timescales but possible).

The comment chain I was responding to started with a quip about conservatives claiming that CO2 emissions are volcanic in nature. The follow-up discussion was about the relative magnitude of volcanic CO2 emissions occurring presently, including USGS figures on the magnitude of those emissions relative to anthropogenic sources. All of this discussion pertained to what is happening now.

You are making a separate point that a catastrophic supervolcano eruption would have much broader impacts. No one is disputing that. You could have a long-lasting volcanic winter, decrease in insolation and surface temperatures, widespread crop failures, etc. That’s all true. It’s also not relevant to the discussion of present impacts that was underway. Again, if a supervolcano eruption actually occurs in our lifetimes, global warming will be the least of our problems.

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.

Brother, if Yellowstone erupted, global warming would be the least of our problems.

Volcanoes release less than 1% of the CO2 of anthropogenic emissions, according to USGS. But they also have a cooling effect by releasing sulfur particles that reflect sunlight. So yeah, volcanoes pretty much a wash, or at least de minimis compared to humans.

“Revive” suggests that this goal was ever dead. Israel has been progressively seizing Palestinian land in the West Bank for half a century.