Global warming debate 'irrational': scientists

[ddg1263]

Here is a quote from an expert in the field of emissions talking about mount st helans and world wide volcanos.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002105397_volcano01m.html




On a global scale, the difference is even more dramatic, said Gerlach, who often gets calls from power-plant operators and oil-company executives who believe nature is just as responsible for global warming as man. His answer always disappoints them.

"I tell them the amounts don't even come close and I usually never hear from them again."

Worldwide, people and their activities pump 26 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, he said. The total from volcanoes is about 200 million tons a year — or less than 1 percent of the man-made emissions

I think big oil has it fingures dirty all over these issues.. and I will say it is over the religion of money.. I am sure natural things are occuring to heat things up, but in the end it is God's will.

[Iovan]

all concentrations expressed in parts per billion)
- Carbon Dioxide (CO2) -
Pre-industrial baseline: 288,000
Natural additions: 68,520
Man-made additions: 11,880
Total (ppb) Concentration: 368,400

(emphasis mine)
See article for more...

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[CitySearcher]

Volcanic explosions do not add to global warming, they contribute to global cooling.

The particles emitted during an explosion actually get into the upper atmosphere and create a blanket affect that blocks the Sun's rays. The bigger the explosion, the more cooling effect.

Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines caused the global average temperature to drop in the early 80's. We haven't had a huge volcanic explosion in a long time. If we did, we would all be talking about global cooling again, and the CO2 issue would be put on the back burner until the skies cleared again.

All particle debris in the atmosphere reflect sunlight. It's the gases that absorb sunlight. Every year thousands of tons of particles filter out of the sky to the earth. Each year the atmosphere will get 'clearer' allowing more rays to penetrate, thus allowing more heat absorption. The only thing that will cause the cycle to switch from warming to cooling is what is known as a "disruption". I.E.: volcanic explosion, asteroid/comet collision, nuclear explosion, etc.

[RWSchilz]

[QUOTE=ddg1263;43938]Here is a quote from an expert in the field of emissions talking about mount st helans and world wide volcanos.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002105397_volcano01m.html


On a global scale, the difference is even more dramatic, said Gerlach, who often gets calls from power-plant operators and oil-company executives who believe nature is just as responsible for global warming as man. His answer always disappoints them.QUOTE]

All you are doing is repeating the rhetoric that is prevalent in the media today nothing you have said proves global warming, I agree there is climate change but no evidence at all to prove doom's day destroying global warming. Africa has been breaking record after record of lower than normal temperatures. I do not care how much ice is melting there are many skeptical scientist that believe it has more to do with the solar cycle than green house gases. Oh and man produces less than 5% OF ALL CO2 according to the 1st link in my offerings. Please check them out.:nod

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://www.mrp3.com/bobf/global_warming.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/5/115518.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/12/22/90128.shtml
http://www.liberty-page.com/cliches/globalskip.html
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/1/23/195240.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/3/19/143626.shtml

[RWSchilz]

[QUOTE=CitySearcher;44201]Volcanic explosions do not add to global warming, they contribute to global cooling.

The particles emitted during an explosion actually get into the upper atmosphere and create a blanket affect that blocks the Sun's rays. The bigger the explosion, the more cooling effect.

Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines caused the global average temperature to drop in the early 80's. We haven't had a huge volcanic explosion in a long time. If we did, we would all be talking about global cooling again, and the CO2 issue would be put on the back burner until the skies cleared again.QUOTE]

Yes that is true, but eventually those particles dissipate over time and all that CO2 that was also released does add to the total amount of green house gases so than we should have rapid warming after the cooling, but we don't. Volcanoes also can cause more precipitation which intern will wash allot of the CO2 back to ground and mainly into our oceans where it will be released back into the air again. This cycle has been repeating itself over and over again for centuries and we have not overheated yet.:)

[Enlightened]

Not to mention what they planned for mars(a planet small enough that 17 of them could fit inside the earth if it was hollow beneath the crust)

Bad science alert! Bad science alert!

Radius of Earth (equatorial) = 6,378.1 kilometers
Radius of Mars (equatorial) = 3,402.5 kilometers

Relative size of Mars compared to Earth = 53%

http://i7.tinypic.com/522j7fs.jpg


Mass of Earth = 5.9736×10^24 kg
Mass of Mars = 6.4185×10^23 kg

Relative mass of Mars compared to Earth = 11%

[CitySearcher]

oh come on...you could squeeze five of those red balls into the hollow Earth if ya try hard enough!! Haven't ya ever seen someone put a whole bag of marshmellows in their mounth? :lol2

Wait a minute...bad science alert?...well if the Bible said good would be bad and bad would be good, then actually you were sounding a good science alert? :heh

Ah science...gotta love it....

back to the GW debate...

[EmmieAZ]

Is this any different than the scientist who takes money from a organization with an atheist agenda, then publishes a paper supporting the theories of the atheist organization? Loss of funding due to disagreeing with the funding organization's point of view is a very great possibility for any scientist. The business of science is profits.



I believe that the Bible is the truth. I don't varnish that truth with talk of "profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith." (I Timothy vi:20b,21a, KJV). I can count, and the Bible tells us how many years it was from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to the Exodus, and from the Exodus to the Temple. I believe that the Author of the Bible is not a man that He should lie. So why should I believe mankind's "science" which is daily influenced by greed and obstinate pride over the facts as presented in the Bible? The same Bible that tells me that God created the heavens and the earth in six days and that there has been only 6000 years from that creation until now is the same Bible that tells me that Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, died for my sins and rose again, offering me and all of humanity eternal life. If you have a problem with one fact from the Bible, do you have a problem with all the other facts as stated in the Bible? If so, you've got bigger problems than whether or not the earth is 6000 or 6,000,000,000 years old.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews xi:1, KJV).

Beautifully and simply said.

[BlessedinHim]

in an earlier post someone was talking about oil and coal and how it came to be formed.

When God made Adam, He made Adam with age,and every other living thing with some age, so why couldnt He have made the earth with age as well?

[csharpdotcom]

in an earlier post someone was talking about oil and coal and how it came to be formed.

When God made Adam, He made Adam with age,and every other living thing with some age, so why couldnt He have made the earth with age as well?

That is a very old argument that I've heard many times before:

1) You are assuming that Adam was a real person based on a particular interpretation of Genesis and was miraculously created as a mature adult.

2) Regardless of whether (1) is literally true or not, Adam or his remains are not around today, or have not been identified, therefore that claim cannot be tested scientifically, whereas fossils, rocks and light from distant stars can be examined today and tested. Unless evidence can be provided, (2) trumps (1) regardless of the literal truth of (1).

3) Even if (1) were literally true, there is a serious philosophical problem, as although one could argue that Adam had to be created mature to be fully functional, what purpose would God have in creating the earth 6000 years ago, but making the isotopic abundances of various long lived isotopes and their daughter products appear to make the earth billions of years old. The same applies to moon rocks, and the resonances of various moons in the Solar System imply a long time for them to be established. For example the orbital periods of the first three Galileon moons of Jupiter are in a 1:2:4 orbital resonance due to their mutual tidal interactions, which would not arise in a 6000 year old Solar System. After 4.5 billion years Jupiter and its moons are old enough for these resonances to be established, but not old enough for the 4th Galilean moon to be included. Mercury is in a 2:3 orbit/spin resonance due to solar tidal forces, and most moons in the Solar System, including our own, are in a 1:1 spin/orbit resonance with their respective planet. There are all sorts of other examples.

My presupposition is that God is the author of truth, and one can glean something of His creation by looking directly at that creation, namely the Solar System in this case. Why would God create 6000 years ago a deception of the Solar System appearing to be billions of years old? If He did, what is the meaning of truth? Remember, although you can argue that Adam was created mature to be fully functional, what functionality would orbital resonances have, other than to fool us into believing that the Solar System is billions of years old? I would rather follow the path of truth.

Thus (3) trumps (1) and (2) regardless of the validities of (1) and (2).