Global Warming

[Loudmouth]

Even apparently there is not agreement.
Long Invisible, Research Shows Volcanic CO2 Levels Are Staggering (Op-Ed)

The highest estimates in that article are 0.6 billion tons of CO2 per year, so that is still well below the 29 billion tons released by humans each year.

We also have hundreds of thousands of years of ice core data. CO2 never gets much above 300 ppm and crashes to well below 200 ppm. We have gone from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm in just 150 years. Do you think it is just a coincidence that this sudden and completely never before seen increase in CO2 occurred during a time when we were releasing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

You'd think we'd be a smoldering cinder by now, wouldn't you?

And Time Square underwater already as I seem to recall the prior claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

And Time Square underwater already as I seem to recall the prior claim.

What scientists are saying this?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The highest estimates in that article are 0.6 billion tons of CO2 per year, so that is still well below the 29 billion tons released by humans each year.

We also have hundreds of thousands of years of ice core data. CO2 never gets much above 300 ppm and crashes to well below 200 ppm. We have gone from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm in just 150 years. Do you think it is just a coincidence that this sudden and completely never before seen increase in CO2 occurred during a time when we were releasing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere?

You missed the whole point, but that is rather the flawed method of criticism being used, not so much a fault of belief or in your case non-belief. The artical points out that in the space of 10 years or so, science went from 100 million tons from volcanoes to over half a billion and they have not actually taken measurements much less considered more than a percent or so of all volcanoes. The prior assumptions about them were nothing really there unless it is active is now know to not only be not true but terribly flawed in regards to the actual total contributions. And none of them have directly observed the effects from a super volcanic eruption (thank God), so we are merely talking about current active eruptions and just starting to add to those estimates the contribution from formerly considered inactive volcanoes in regards to CO2 admissions.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Actually, yes we can.

Take a look at graph (a). The grey line represents what the temperature would be like if we were not here. The red line is the current temperature. Notice how the red line is higher than the grey line. That is the difference that humans have made.

That's not proof, that's supposition.

Why not?

The best you can say is that you can't find evidence. Does that mean that there is no evidence? I don't think so!

Since you insist that humans were around for the flood, that limits it to at least the last 200,000 years. That is very recent in geologic terms.

Yes, it is. I don't question how God works.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

What scientists are saying this?

The point was made to the obvious false claims made by various people, including a presidential candidate, who want to politicize the science to their political advantage and in his case huge monetary gains. In that context of both my reply to Root of Jesse and his reply, there is no way to assume we were talking about a particular scientist. But thanks for helping me make this point.

It also goes to the danger of relying on research that happens to benefit from research grants of whatever political party happens to be in power. Thanks for helping me point that out as well.

 

[RickG]

Even there apparently there is not agreement.
Long Invisible, Research Shows Volcanic CO2 Levels Are Staggering (Op-Ed)

http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html
I believe you misunderstand what your article is saying. From the article: "...the steady breathing of volcanoes quietly sheds upwards of a quarter of a billion tons of CO2 every year."

From my source, the Energy Information Administration, are the people who actually gather the data. Fossil fuel emissions account for 29 billion tons annually. Your source stated a quarter of a billion tons annually from volcanoes. That's still only about 1% of atmospheric CO2.

No matter, as we both already answered the OPs question from an opposing Christian perspective which also helps explain your position (and many Christians) along with the case many non-Christians make against Christianity. Am very happy to be on the opposing side of that view along with the poster of the OP.

I am not opposing Noah's flood, I am suggesting that it was a regional event encompassing Noah's world, rather than the entire earth. A matter of interpretation, not doubt.

 

[RickG]

That's not proof, that's supposition.

I'm a bit confused, how are Loudmouth's presentation of the three IPCC graphs not proof? A short explanation would be appreciated.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I believe you misunderstand what your article is saying. From the article: "...the steady breathing of volcanoes quietly sheds upwards of a quarter of a billion tons of CO2 every year."

From my source, the Energy Information Administration, are the people who actually gather the data. Fossil fuel emissions account for 29 billion tons annually. Your source stated a quarter of a billion tons annually from volcanoes. That's still only about 1% of atmospheric CO2.


I am not opposing Noah's flood, I am suggesting that it was a regional event encompassing Noah's world, rather than the entire earth. A matter of interpretation, not doubt.

The editorial gives some credit to a volcanologist and clearly suggests that we obviously do not know, as in have no clue, what the actual total contribution of current volcanic activity is and points out the fatal flaws in prior estimates, which given the huge accelerating changes in those best guesses for many logical reasons strongly suggest the number is vastly understated even now. Never mind not knowing what a supervolcano could do.

Back to the OP question and using your own method of historical criticism (for tossing much of Christian traditional views) against yourself, the data you cite seems very likely to be severely understated for the reasons stated in the article.

Also one needs to read the entire article rather than take a single statement and misrepresent what it says.

 

[Root of Jesse]

If you don't think the Prodigal Son was a real person, do you not believe the Bible?

I believe the Prodigal Son is a real person. So I can't consider that hypothetical.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'm a bit confused, how are Loudmouth's presentation of the three IPCC graphs not proof? A short explanation would be appreciated.

If I stick a piece of paper in your face, should I necessarily believe it? The graphs are graphs. The supposition behind the graphs is something else.

 

[RickG]

The editorial gives some credit to a volcanologist and clearly suggests that we obviously do not know, as in have no clue, what the actual total contribution of current volcanic activity is and points out the fatal flaws in prior estimates, which given the huge accelerating changes in those best guesses for many logical reasons strongly suggest the number is vastly understated even now. Never mind not knowing what a supervolcano could do.

The article is an OP-ED article in a layman's magazine, not a published peer reviewed article in a peer review science journal. Again the article says 0.25 billion tonnes from volcanoes annually. Fossil fuel measurements are 29 billion tonnes annually. The fossil fuel estimates are not 99% wrong. Additionally, carbon isotope analysis of atmospheric CO2 shows the vast majority of it to be from fossil fuels.

Back to the OP question and using your own method of historical criticism (for tossing much of Christian traditional views) against yourself, the data you cite seems very likely to be severely understated for the reasons stated in the article.

I'm not sure what you are getting at there. Are you referring to my Black Sea scenario?

 

[RickG]

If I stick a piece of paper in your face, should I necessarily believe it? The graphs are graphs. The supposition behind the graphs is something else.

The graphs are based on actual data, there is no supposition whatsoever.

 

[Loudmouth]

You missed the whole point, but that is rather the flawed method of criticism being used, not so much a fault of belief or in your case non-belief. The artical points out that in the space of 10 years or so, science went from 100 million tons from volcanoes to over half a billion and they have not actually taken measurements much less considered more than a percent or so of all volcanoes.

We already have historic levels of atmospheric CO2, and they never creep up much past 300 ppm. We are over 400 ppm right now. Is it just a coincidence that we are seeing unprecedented levels of CO2 at just the moment in history when we are pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere?

Also, the recent increase in CO2 over the last 150 years is rich in 12C. Fossil fuels are also rich in 12C as compared to abiotic volcanic gasses. The isotope makeup of the CO2 is yet another piece of evidence demonstrating that the source of CO2 is biotic, not abiotic.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's not proof, that's supposition.

How so?

The best you can say is that you can't find evidence. Does that mean that there is no evidence? I don't think so!

Then where is the evidence?

Do you believe in every unfalsifiable claim that has no evidence for it?

 

[Loudmouth]

If I stick a piece of paper in your face, should I necessarily believe it?

Isn't that what you do with the Bible?

The graphs are graphs. The supposition behind the graphs is something else.

This is what we mean by ignoring the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe the Prodigal Son is a real person. So I can't consider that hypothetical.

You think a parable requires the characters in the parable to be real people? When you read Aesop's Fables, do you really think animals were talking to one another?

 

[Root of Jesse]

The graphs are based on actual data, there is no supposition whatsoever.

You mean like a movie is 'based on' actual events? The graphs depict actual data, maybe. The conclusions drawn from said data is supposition.

 

[Loudmouth]

You mean like a movie is 'based on' actual events? The graphs depict actual data, maybe. The conclusions drawn from said data is supposition.

How is it supposition?

 

[Root of Jesse]

How so?

Because it's someone's interpretation of the data, it's an opinion.

Then where is the evidence?

I don't know. I'm not the one searching for evidence.

Do you believe in every unfalsifiable claim that has no evidence for it?

No. I don't believe mankind is mostly responsible for Global Warming.