Carbon PartT 2

Okay but what about the rest of nature and its 700 - 900 BILLION tons of CO2 it annually makes and recycles with a seasonal variance alone of somewhere between 3:1 and 6:1 over us humans gross peak CO2 production numbers?

Dang it I just used some facts and made us look small and insignificant again.

Okay so now who's gonna trump me?

First, those numbers are not verifiable. You cite no one.

Second, your statement shows that nature recycles (adds and removes) this much CO2. We only add about 3% of your numbers every year. That does not sound insignificant to me.

Third, emotional reasoning quickly grasps for any plausible excuse before closing the mind. Just as you demonstrated with your reasoning and uncited numbers. You did not exactly refute yourself like the article in the other thread but you are close.

Thanks for the info.

Isn't this information from NASA based upon the same report that NASA recently admitted is at least 30% inaccurate and in fact could be as much as 50% or more inaccurate?

My point is that the information currently available on this subject is indeed not a "real" measured quantity as reflected by the statement; "On average, volcanoes emit between 130 and 230 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year."

A variance of almost double indicates this is an estimated value and is in no way accurate.

The same applies to the quantity of emissions from burning fossil fuels because it is an estimated value which is flawed to say the least.

For example:

Automobile emissions are estimated on the quantity of vehicles currently registered in the US of which many vehicles although registered are not in operation.

Knowing how many hours in each day a particular vehicle is being operated is impossible therefore their emissions estimate(s) cannot be accurate.

Knowing how many vehicles are operating in other countries and their condition also is not accurately definable.

I am not any different than anyone else weighing in on this argument in that I do not know either way whether the root-cause of the earth's temperature increase is due to a natural cycle or is being caused by the actions of humans.

I am saying that before extreme theories are published by the scientific community, the system for measuring and quantifying the DATA should be based on facts not flawed estimates or personal opinions.

There is entirely too many conflicting opinions on this subject and in my opinion none are 100% accurate.

I also am of the opinion that due to the potential consequences we need swallow our pride and apply the scientific method to find out if there is anything we as humans can do to control or offset what is happening.

As to how we can do this currently is a mystery because we do not have the technology to accurately measure the quantity of emissions from a volcano or any other naturally occurring emissions from the earth's crust.

We cannot yet distinguish/identify which CO2 molecules are from vehicles or coal-fired process or industrial plants or from naturally occurring process.

I think we need to stop worrying about our ego and start focusing on an accurate method to identify what is causing the increase in temperature then provide clear and concise evidence to support the findings and if it is something we as humans can influence we must proceed without delay before it is too late.

I see no reason why we cannot eliminate pollution while keeping the manufacturing facilities we need for human existence.

The emotions are sensitive today to the point of irrational statements being made and then buried under an immense pile.

The average amount of materials the volcanoes emits varies because the period to be averaged varies and the amount of spewed material itself varies during that period. Sheesh. Or do you really think that the random process of volcano activity cannot have a standard deviation above 25%.

As I said, verifiable information can never quell an emotion. Just look at the straws being grasped and what (if any) citations are placed to prop up those straws.

I like your post volcanoes in fact are a source of CO2 emission's but they can't be taxed so I'd shift your focus away from them. starting in 1988 with Congressional testimony by NASA scientist James Hansen the public has been filled with doomsday forecasts like, "Florida going 20 feet under the waves" all sea ice disappearing by 2015, polar bears being drowned to death etc.most of this BS is based on Hansen's work and subsequent computer climate models. in recent years better data has come from newer satellites that measure radiation that leaves our planet, better ground based recording equipment and practices, and a temp satellite record going back to the late 70s. if you overlay the actual temps that have been taken over Hansen's prediction from 1988 you'll see he over estimated.http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm if you dig as deep as I have you'll find that over the last century we have in fact warmed but carbon isn't wholly responsible.many suggest solar activity, they might be right but CO2 from us isn't the complete answer nor has it proven to have the dire effects many have purported that it would. many out there that once bought into the carbon gloom and doom have not noticed the runaway temps or evaporating ocean scenarios and have converted to a more skeptical position. I think the field of climate science over did it with their dated models profile. I believe they will evolve and have more accurate sat data on surface temp(up to about 10km), soil moisture. CO2 and outgoing radiation. the physics of CO2 have been understood for a long time, their exact role in our atmosphere and how temperature work with them is still evolving. the current theory is that temp follows increases in CO2, I believe that's backwards.I think current theory doesn't explain warming correctly. I'm a proponent of better clear data and computer models that don't begin with the mindset that carbon is the evil player, just a factor out of many factors.

Florida isn't underwater and Hansen's temp projection 20 years later have proven to be overstated,wrong. lets hit the reset button and do as Australia did and rethink taxing people for carbon that's been given a bad wrap.

What....??? No mention of the effects of flatulence??? Not just the C02, but the contribution of methane and hydrogen sulfide? And not to mention all of the hot air generated by the politics of "carbon" which I haven't seen in any calculations.

I'd I'd more concerned about water vapor

Finally someone brought up a major player that has been overlooked. WV is a significant player as it comprises about 3% of the atmosphere as opposed to .035% by CO₂. Does it exacerbate or moderate GW? It takes a great deal of heat to vaporize water, that is then released at a much higher altitude when it turns to rain or snow.

"What....??? No mention of the effects of flatulence??? "

"I'd I'd more concerned about water vapor"

Personally when they both are mixed together thats when I get the most concerned.

Shart!