Third month since I started this blog! Global warming climate change and why scientist and I disagree about available carbon on the planet

Global warming and Climate change}Why do I disagree with the scientific world about how much carbon is available for the world's plant life to have access to? In some way this is a really easy question to answer, all you have to do is add up all of the carbon that can be easily converted back into carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, around 800 Gt/C, 39,000 Gt/C in the oceans, 560 Gt/C in living plants and animal life, 1,500 Gt/C in the planet soil, and approximately 4,000 Gt/C as fossil fuel mainly in the form of coal, not oil. This equals 45,860 Gt/C on the whole planet that could relatively easily be converted by nature, back into carbon dioxide, the only form that plant life can use. ( the 4000 Gt/C of fossil fuel could really only be used by man-made use of those fuels, not by a natural decaying process ) Then you take the number that the scientific world says that is sequestered each and every year by soil erosion and production of limestone by the death of sea life, which is around 10 Gt/C, and divide that into the total amount of carbon left that plants could, in theory, have access to of 45,860. You get 4,586 years to no more carbon left for plant life to draw from! Now the scientist comeback is that there are billions and billions of Gt/C locked up all over the planet just waiting to come into contact with a high enough heat source such as a volcano, which will melt this carbon and shoot it back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, and this is true except, not since the super volcano that is Yellowstone national park has there been a time, that more carbon dioxide was brought back into the atmosphere over a several-year period than was removed by sequestration. The best guess that many scientists agree upon is that natural causes of return of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is a lowly 3 Gt/C per year, mainly but not only by volcanic eruptions! way less than the 10 Gt/C loss each year. ( loss is really not the right word the carbon is still on the planet but unavailable for use, it is either buried so deep underground or has been converted to rock such as limestone ) The real problem that science has is, no one goes around and collects all of the data that is put out and sees how it fits together to form a whole. Instead, each person or group informs each other of what they find out in relation to climate change, because that is what they were asked to do, be you for, or against climate change, that is where the funding is directed. Again money only, not necessarily RELEVANT facts.   Dan Kadavy please call I would love to have a conversation about this most important issue! 402-890-7946 Cortland Nebraska. U.S.A. Or I can be reached at my e-mail   daniel.kadavy212@gmail.com

    For some reason, the posts that I think are the most relevant to repairing the planet's temperature-regulating-abilities do not line up with the posts that most people look up and seeming read. Yet because those posts do seem to draw the most attention, like this one, I will normally add something to such a post and repost it in the belief that it seems to hit the right chord with people, and that is what is important! With the average post receiving around 20 hits, every little bit is important! Dan