by Ewan McDonald
A hypothesis of the history of Earth's atmosphere with regard to man-made global warning. CO2 and the effect of Noah's flood.
Most of the apocalyptic scenarios of global climate change are predicated upon a false understanding of the history of the earth. Evolutionists have the mistaken belief that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that it has therefore taken vast ages for the planet to have arrived at the present state of climate equilibrium. The corollary of this is another belief that human action in mining and burning fossil fuels will upset this fragile long established balance. The two statements here seem contrary to each other:
However, the biblical history of the planet is much different and therefore leads to different conclusions about these things. Unlike the philosophical naturalists, a biblical creationist would reasonably assume that God created a robust life- sustaining climate with built-in self regulating mechanisms (homeostasis), and that there is good reason to believe that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere was much higher in the relatively recent past.
According to biblical history, the fossils from which fossil fuels are derived were formed only about 4300 years ago during the Flood when vast volumes of biomatter were buried. Consequently, the volume of carbon freely circulating within the biosphere was greatly reduced which would lead to the assumption that since that time the atmosphere has contained a lower proportion of CO2 than existed in the originally created pre-Flood atmosphere.
This last assumption fits with real observational science which has determined that human and animal life can tolerate without any deleterious effects much higher concentrations of CO2, and that plant life responds positively to increased CO 2 . Indeed commercial greenhouse operators artificially increase the percentage of CO2 by as much as three times the natural level to maximise crop productivity. CO2 is an efficient and cheap natural plant fertiliser. So it would appear that life was designed for an atmosphere containing higher concentrations of CO2.
Real observational science also demonstrates that CO2 has a minimal contribution towards the greenhouse effect due to its small proportion in the atmosphere and the fact that the relationship between CO2 concentration and any greenhouse effect is not linear but logarithmic. In other words, the increasing greenhouse effect of increasing CO 2 diminishes as the CO 2 concentration increases.
The only way computer climate models can conclude a run-away global warming effect from increasing CO2 is by exaggerating the positive feedback (or forcing) factors and by discounting the negative feedback factors. Such an assumption is counter-intuitive from a biblical perspective which believes climate processes to be designed rather than randomly derived.
So if we discount the alarmist assumption that more CO2 equals more warming, then burning fossil fuels should be a win-win scenario. That's fine for a purely CO2 output in the burning process, as opposed to CO and other gases (some toxic) which are produced by the process. Therefore, isn't it better to say that the “clean” or “cleaner” 'burning of fossil fuels should be a win-win scenario?
