Is global warming just another ‘End-of-the-World’ delusion?

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus I rather felt you did that job quite well

I personally don't believe in the rapture I believe he will come in the clouds once and for all in a final second coming with all his power and then the end will come and the marriage supper of the lamb.

I don't think the Jews of today believe in one either

http://www.christianforums.com/t7669565/
Who is Going to be Raptured at the First Rapture Before the Tribulation Starts? [poll thread]

Since we know when the first rapture takes place, who then is raptured before the Tribulation?

Of course, whether taken or left, all the men and women spoken of here in Matt. 24.40-41 are saved—so that the ones left cannot be viewed as being unsaved because of the following reasons:


We need to see from all this that if all believers were to be raptured together, what would be the need for our Lord to warn us to watch? Moreover, if we knew the time of His coming, we again would have no need to watch. But since the Lord has not told us the hour, let us ever be watchful and on guard.

 

[Greatcloud]

Do you have any data to back this up? Or is this just a guess?



So is it natural or not? You claim in one sentence that it is natural and has nothing to do with the 30% increase in CO2 over the last 150 years. You then say that warming could be due to increased CO2, but we won't know until it hits 500 ppm. So which is it? Also, we are currently at 400 ppm which is not seen anywhere in the 400,000+ year ice core record which only get close to 300 ppm at their maxima. We are already well above natural levels. We are absorbing more heat in the atmosphere than is natural.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1806245/posts

excerpt:

Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm. Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an accuracy better than 3%. These determinations were made by several scientists of Nobel Prize level distinction.

So you see we are not unique in this modern warming period 400 ppm in 1942 is pretty significant what do you say to that ?

 

[Gracchus]

You put a lot of stock in the ability of one man and his ability to reason.

One man? I check my reasoning and opinions against the reasoning and opinions of others, of course, which is what I am doing on this forum, but also against repeated observations of the real world.

Well that is not the highest authority there is a higher power.

Who always agrees with you!

In case you didn't know it you are in a Christian forum and the higher power is God ...

I know I am in a Christian forum. The name of the forum gave me clue. The higher power in the forum isn't God, it's the mods.

... and I know that Buddhist don't believe in God ...

Some do. Some are actually polytheists. Some Buddhists even pray to Buddha, which would have made him laugh.

... but I bet you did as a kid before you converted to Buddhism.

I don't disbelieve in God. I disbelieve in your god, the one who created a system of "original sin" and "vicarious atonement".

I get to call your religion primitive too

Well, it is more than five hundred years older than Christianity. I could tell you more about it, but you wouldn't listen.

go sit and contemplate this AGW is a crock

Not a powerful argument.

how do you know it is not a natural warming without any or very little of mans addition to it.

Well, for one thing, the present warming cycle started when we began to to burn great quantities of fossil fuels. And while there have been other warming trends in the past, the present one is proceeding much faster than any previous one.
Air is mostly nitrogen, and most of the rest is oxygen. There is a little CO2, and traces of other stuff. But CO2 has a warming effect all out of proportion to its abundance. All of this has been explained to you, I am sure, but you don't want to believe it, and you have trained yourself to believe only what you want to believe, no matter how absurd it is.

There go contemplate that and see if you reach nirvana or something.

Nirvana is a state of non-existence. I have, perhaps, attained some degree of enlightenment.

By the way, you might want to pay some attention to punctuation, in your posts. The lack of it gives the impression that you are raving and makes your intended meaning unclear. Luckily, I am somewhat familiar with cryptology and have had some dealings with the mentally ill.

REASON

Say, rather: "Reason!"

No need to kowtow or grovel, as your "god" seems to require, and no need to shout.

 

[Greatcloud]

One man? I check my reasoning and opinions against the reasoning and opinions of others, of course, which is what I am doing on this forum, but also against repeated observations of the real world.

Who always agrees with you! (no I always agree with him and he is a being whom I have a personal relationship with)
I know I am in a Christian forum. The name of the forum gave me clue. The higher power in the forum isn't God, it's the mods.(God is reality and he is more of a judge than the mods could ever hope to be)

Some do. Some are actually polytheists. Some Buddhists even pray to Buddha, which would have made him laugh. (You are nothing but a buddhist nerd)

I don't disbelieve in God. I disbelieve in your god, the one who created a system of "original sin" and "vicarious atonement".(so you create your own personal God who does not offend you)
Well, it is more than five hundred years older than Christianity. I could tell you more about it, but you wouldn't listen.(sure I would you continue to misrepresent me in your perception)
Not a powerful argument.
Well, for one thing, the present warming cycle started when we began to to burn great quantities of fossil fuels. And while there have been other warming trends in the past, the present one is proceeding much faster than any previous one.(only in the 90's was it fast in onset it has stagnated now)
Air is mostly nitrogen, and most of the rest is oxygen. There is a little CO2, and traces of other stuff. But CO2 has a warming effect all out of proportion to its abundance. All of this has been explained to you, I am sure, but you don't want to believe it, and you have trained yourself to believe only what you want to believe, no matter how absurd it is. (yes I have heard this before and you must have heard the other side of CC, Cosmoclimatology ,the natural warming theory ect.....)
Nirvana is a state of non-existence. I have, perhaps, attained some degree of enlightenment.(well good for you)

By the way, you might want to pay some attention to punctuation, in your posts. The lack of it gives the impression that you are raving and makes your intended meaning unclear. Luckily, I am somewhat familiar with cryptology and have had some dealings with the mentally ill. (I never was good in english better in math and science A's and B's)(that last crack was a flame and I will not lower myself to address it further)


I am a passionate and firey individual, so I get carried away sometimes. I do not want a flame war with you. Lets agree to stop now, and return to somewhat normal discourse.


Say, rather: "Reason!"

No need to kowtow or grovel, as your "god" seems to require, and no need to shout.

I bow to him because he is worthy of all my praise and yet he is my friend, a dichotomy.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Real History of Carbon Dioxide Levels

excerpt:

Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm. Between 1857 and 1958, the Pettenkofer process was the standard analytical method for determining atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and usually achieved an accuracy better than 3%. These determinations were made by several scientists of Nobel Prize level distinction.

So you see we are not unique in this modern warming period 400 ppm in 1942 is pretty significant what do you say to that ?

First, the accuracy of those measurements is certainly under question. We have ice core data from those periods and they do not show the same fluctuations as those reported by Beck. If you look at the graphs in the actual paper you will notice that the historic measurements by 19th century scientists are all over the place. There is wild variation. This is in stark contrast to very even measurements made at Mauna Loa and the ice core data.

The fact of the matter is that near ground measurements of CO2 can be wildly variable. I found this website to be interesting:

The real Co2 levels in history

At just one station at 29m of altitude they found variation of 320 to 500 ppm over just a few years, and varied by season as well. All this time the upper atmospheric measurements and Mauna Loa were nice and steady.

So what we with the Beck study is two fold: less than reliable measurements and known variations in near ground CO2 concentrations.

 

[Gracchus]

I bow to him because he is worthy of all my praise and yet he is my friend, a dichotomy.

Let's get back to the subject.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

CO2 has a warming effect all out of proportion to its abundance.

Other gases present a bigger problem.

 

[Greatcloud]

Where I have a problem it is with the alarmist who say the world is doomed and mankind is doomed. The ocean will rise and swallow up the cities by the ocean including Manhattan and Los Angeles, they are gone, under water.

Ancient Sea-levels Rewrite Ice Age Transitions | The Resilient Earth

excerpt:

There are two conclusions from this work that stand out. The first is that sea-levels were higher by at least 3 feet during the last interglacial and even during one 4000 year long warm period after the termination of interglacial conditions. This implies that an additional rise in sea-levels in the future would not be an indication of abnormal global warming, as claimed by some climate change alarmists. The fact is, recent sea-levels have been remarkably stable. According to the new speleothem data “mean sea level has remained stable on Mallorca for the past ~2800 years.”

Or people say hurricanes are getting worse and more people are dying. Well that just ain't so.
Hurricane Fatalities, 1900–2010: Update | Watts Up With That?

So I take all these claims with a grain of salt.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Or people say hurricanes are getting worse and more people are dying. Well that just ain't so.
Hurricane Fatalities, 1900–2010: Update | Watts Up With That?

Incidentally, fatalities alone aren't an accurate yardstick for whether or not hurricanes are getting stronger.

We have much better technology which makes it possible to anticipate hurricanes, giving people ample time to prepare themselves. Transportation makes it easier to get out of the way ahead of time, and for those who can't, he average dwelling is a lot stronger and more resistant to hurricanes.

So, really, a body count alone doesn't say much about the strength of hurricanes.

Plus, you may have noticed that the graph shows a steady rise since the 1980s.

 

[Gracchus]

Other gases present a bigger problem.

(... than CO2)

Well, in a way!

Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas, and it is being released from the tundra as the permafrost melts and from the floor of the Arctic Ocean as the reflective ice cover disappears and the water warms. But, eventually methane will degrade into water vapor and CO2 (releasing heat). (Oops!) Water vapor also has a green house effect, and is the most plentiful greenhouse gas, but as it rises it condenses into clouds, it reflects heat back into space before it warms the ground. Anyway, there isn't much we can do about water vapor.

So, I have to disagree with you. Other gases do not present a bigger problem. We can do little or nothing about other greenhouse gases. CO2 is the part of the problem we can address. It is CO2 that sets the thermostat.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

Methane and water vapor both are more powerful greenhouse gases. I've been pro- conservation my entire life, and am proud to see my parents forced into the type of recycling I tried to demand of the household before I turned 5. So surely I'm not suggesting we don't do what we can to reduce CO2 emissions, but I'm saying we should also be exploring what we might be able to do about methane. (Maybe those bovine flatulence studies weren't just a waste?)

 

[Gracchus]

Methane and water vapor both are more powerful greenhouse gases. I've been pro- conservation my entire life, and am proud to see my parents forced into the type of recycling I tried to demand of the household before I turned 5. So surely I'm not suggesting we don't do what we can to reduce CO2 emissions, but I'm saying we should also be exploring what we might be able to do about methane. (Maybe those bovine flatulence studies weren't just a waste?)

But termite flatulence produces more methane by far. And trying to tent all the termite mounds is a pretty hopeless project, and, it history is any guide, would probably have lots of side effects.

And that would still leave the methane from melting permafrost and the warming Arctic Ocean floor.

As for water vapor -- We have oceans so the water vapor is going to reach some equilibrium. There will be more vapor in the atmosphere causing warming but more clouds to reflect the heat, which would cause cooling, but also more and stronger storms.

We don't know for sure what is going to happen, because weather is chaotic, but look for extremes and violent fluctuations. This will lead to crop failures, which of course will cause famines, which will pave the way for plague and pestilence. Moreover some of the atmospheric CO2 is being absorbed by the oceans, causing them to become acidic, killing corals, and changing the environment in ways that will apparently lead to more jellyfish and sea slugs and fewer bony fish and shellfish.

The great cod fisheries are already shutting down from overfishing, and the tuna and salmon are vanishing at an alarming rate. And then there are the rain forests, vanishing for lumber and slash and burn agriculture.

If the carnivores eat all the herbivores, then the carnivore population crashes also. In point of fact if the herbivore population drops too low to support the carnivores, the carnivores go extinct and the herbivores, unchecked, recover disasterously and eat all the vegetation, before dying out themselves. This is probably going to be bigger than the Devonian Extinction, when 90% of all species went extinct, and of those species left, the populations dropped drasticly.

Human beings will react to stress as they always do, by going insane, and starting internal and external conflicts, casting around for scapegoats so they don't have to take credit for their own stupidity. Only this time, we have weapons of mass destruction.

And we won't do anything, because Jesus, or space aliens, or technology is going to save us, and doing the necessary ourselves would cut into the quarterly profits too much.

It's a hoot!

 

[RaiseTheDead]

So pest control is the answer! Annihilate termites, save the world. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Blackwater Babe]

But termite flatulence produces more methane by far. And trying to tent all the termite mounds is a pretty hopeless project, and, it history is any guide, would probably have lots of side effects.

And that would still leave the methane from melting permafrost and the warming Arctic Ocean floor.

Do termites account for more methane than agriculture? really?

 

[Loudmouth]

And then there are the rain forests, vanishing for lumber and slash and burn agriculture.

Ironically, a lot of that agriculture is sugar cane farming used to produce ethanol. Ethanol is just not the way to go if we are only able to harvest sugars. We have to be able to break down the cellulose into fermentable sugars if plant derived ethanol is ever going to be helpful to carbon emissions.

 

[Loudmouth]

Other gases present a bigger problem.

Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas, but it has a shorter residence time because it reacts with oxygen in the atmosphere to produce carbon dioxide (and water, but it precipitates out in short order)

 

[Loudmouth]

There are two conclusions from this work that stand out. The first is that sea-levels were higher by at least 3 feet during the last interglacial and even during one 4000 year long warm period after the termination of interglacial conditions. This implies that an additional rise in sea-levels in the future would not be an indication of abnormal global warming, as claimed by some climate change alarmists. The fact is, recent sea-levels have been remarkably stable. According to the new speleothem data “mean sea level has remained stable on Mallorca for the past ~2800 years.”

I have seen this type of argument before, and it just doesn't pass the smell test. Let's use a murder trial as an analogy.

The prosecution presents its case where they demonstrate that the defendant's fingerprints, DNA, tire prints, and fibers were found on and around the victim. All of the forensic evidence clearly points to the defendant commiting the murder. The defense presents its argument. It is a rather simple one. The attorney demonstrates that people die of natural causes all of the time, therefore the person under question did as well. Obviously, if people die of natural causes then no one can ever be convicted of killing someone, right?

We have the same case here. Yes, sea levels can fluctuate in response to natural occurences. This doesn't rule out warming due to human causes which then cause sea level rises.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I thought that cows belching was the biggest problem, not flatulence. Get them on the proper grassland forage and the indigestion problem diminishes. Grassland also promotes cooler weather and gentler, more consistant rainfall. British agronomists warned us years ago that if we followed the agricultural practices that ruined England's farm land and economy we would do the same and worse in America. As it is America is 'twice the child of hell' that Britian was, agriculturally speaking.

 

[Greatcloud]

I have seen this type of argument before, and it just doesn't pass the smell test. Let's use a murder trial as an analogy.

The prosecution presents its case where they demonstrate that the defendant's fingerprints, DNA, tire prints, and fibers were found on and around the victim. All of the forensic evidence clearly points to the defendant commiting the murder. The defense presents its argument. It is a rather simple one. The attorney demonstrates that people die of natural causes all of the time, therefore the person under question did as well. Obviously, if people die of natural causes then no one can ever be convicted of killing someone, right?

We have the same case here. Yes, sea levels can fluctuate in response to natural occurences. This doesn't rule out warming due to human causes which then cause sea level rises.

We still do not know weather it is a natural or manmade warming and there is at present no way to prove either. BTW that analogy of yours is rediculous and has no bearing on my argument of natural causes.

 

[Loudmouth]

We still do not know weather it is a natural or manmade warming and there is at present no way to prove either. BTW that analogy of yours is rediculous and has no bearing on my argument of natural causes.

What did you mean by this?

"The first is that sea-levels were higher by at least 3 feet during the last interglacial and even during one 4000 year long warm period after the termination of interglacial conditions. This implies that an additional rise in sea-levels in the future would not be an indication of abnormal global warming, as claimed by some climate change alarmists."

From the way I read it, you are arguing that sea levels have risen in the past through natural means so future increases in sea levels would not indicate man made causes.