Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
  • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
  • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting after you have posted 20 posts and have received 5 likes.
  • Access to private conversations with other members.

We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Greatcloud, Jul 20, 2012.

  1. DennisTate

    DennisTate Newbie

    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    2
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    CA-Liberals
    Faith:
    Messianic
    On the other hand 37 million bees dying is a sure sign that something about our economy is far off from what God would have intended?????!!!!

    37 Million Bees Found Dead In Ontario


     
  2. poolerboy0077

    poolerboy0077 New Member

    Messages:
    1,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
    A piece of evidence from our geological past are the so-called "Snowball Earth" conditions. Since the sun was much weaker than today during the Precambrian period, the cooled Earth should have been almost entirely covered in ice—and it was, several times. So what thawed it out? The only thing that changed during the Snowball period was that CO2 levels rose dramatically through volcanic activity. The thawing of the planet fits perfectly with carbon dioxide's role as a powerful greenhouse gas. Over time CO2 tends to get washed out of the atmosphere due to chemical weathering becoming carbonates that fall to the sea floor and turn into carbonate rocks.

    But during Snowball Earth, for obvious reasons, that kind of weathering didn't happen, which is why CO2 would have accumulated in the atmosphere. Since those high levels of CO2 remained even after the Earth had thawed, the Earth kept warming until it became a hot house with coral reefs close to the poles. So even with the sun six percent weaker than it is today, but with carbon dioxide levels 25 times higher, the Earth was much hotter than today.

    This anomally is a piece of evidence that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Over millions of years carbon dioxide weathered out of the atmosphere, and as levels dropped so did the temperature. The Earth became a snowball once again and the process repeated itself. Carbon dioxides role in regulating past temperature is so clear that CO2 has been called the Earth's thermostat.

    When we hear the argument that climates always change and this is perfectly natural, and that the climate change going on now is perfectly natural, well of course it is. There's absolutely no difference between the CO2 that's being added to the atmosphere now and the CO2 that was added to the atmosphere in the past. It's the same stuff and it's warming effect is exactly the same.
     
  3. Greatcloud

    Greatcloud Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,174
    Likes Received:
    6
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Charismatic
    pooler....... you bring up an excellent point and I like what you have to say about CO2 in general. I think the last thing you say about CO2 is the point we agree on most. CO2 natural , CO2 from man's industry is the same. Or is that not what you said ?
     
  4. Heissonear

    Heissonear Geochemist and Stratigrapher Supporter

    Messages:
    2,530
    Likes Received:
    10
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational

    So, there was a Snowball Earth? How do you know? You read about what geologist have said. Sorry, they are mere men like us and they propose a theory for the types of sediments found in strata dated/classified as Early Paleozoic times.

    The CO2 connection to any type of "catastrophic arthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is rapidly losing vogue in science.

    AGW is yet to be measurable, since we still cannot determine the magnitude of natural cycles mother nature has on climate.
     
  5. Greatcloud

    Greatcloud Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,174
    Likes Received:
    6
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Charismatic
    CAGW is not in vogue as Richard Lindzen says in his quote below in my tag line. This is also what I believe to be the case the data does not prove AGW at least to the amount that the believer's say. Man caused GW or CC is not a large percentage it is mostly natural according to all data I know of.
     
  6. poolerboy0077

    poolerboy0077 New Member

    Messages:
    1,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Atheist
    I don't understand your general objection. ALL science is empirically arrived at by thinking humans. And your point is...? You can't simply use that as a reason to dismiss something, especially when you appeal to other explanations by other fallible humans. The point is not whether there is room for error. There always is. The question is what evidence exists and what explains it.

    Oh? Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Because solar irradiance has been flat since the 1950s. Climatologists conclude that the sun therefore cannot be responsible for most of the warming over the last 35 years. You are confusing this with the increase in irradiance over the phanerozoic, which encompasses 500 million years. AGW is most certainly measurable but you have seemingly taken it as dogma that it is not and have ipso facto rendered all evidence contrary to your position tainted and flawed because it is arrived at by fallible man.

    Ah the beauty of the unfalsifiable.
     
  7. TheBeardedDude

    TheBeardedDude The Fossil Dude(tm)

    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Democrat
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Hey look! Heissonear is spouting off about how he knows more than geologists because he has these mysterious degrees from "well-known" places. Going to elaborate on those this week?
     
  8. Greatcloud

    Greatcloud Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,174
    Likes Received:
    6
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Charismatic
    I also want to see the Paleozoic geologic data on this.

    I have never heard the term "Snowball Earth" is this from a reputable science website ?

    Heissonear may not believe it out of hand but me I want to see some hard science data.
     
  9. TheBeardedDude

    TheBeardedDude The Fossil Dude(tm)

    Messages:
    653
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Democrat
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Dr. Paul Hoffman
    SNOWBALL EARTH
     
  10. Lucy Stulz

    Lucy Stulz New Member

    Messages:
    1,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Other-Religion
    ^_^^_^

    LOL! This is funny!

    Ummm, too bad you just blew off the GEOLOGISTS who actually HAVE a great deal of that data.

    Oh well....at least the scientists know what's up. Even if you have no earthly idea.
     
  11. Coelo

    Coelo Newbie

    Messages:
    462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Word-of-Faith
    Did you say economy? Perhaps you were meaning ecology.
     
  12. Coelo

    Coelo Newbie

    Messages:
    462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Word-of-Faith
    More then several.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. CabVet

    CabVet Question everything

    Messages:
    11,686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Agnostic
    I am willing to bet you cannot name the source of that graph. But you forgot this one from the same source:

    [​IMG]

    P.S.: The earth was never even close to being completely covered by ice. Here is what it looks like during glacial maxima (the coldest points on those graphs):

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2013
  14. Greatcloud

    Greatcloud Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,174
    Likes Received:
    6
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Charismatic
    Once again we are drifting off topic, I contend that AGW the man caused part of GW is very small. CC is happening it is warmer then it has been for about 35 years now. 35 years ago it was normal but in the 70's the change started it became warmer,fine I don't dispute it.

    What on Earth though does one do with the MWP & LIA they were global according to this very comprehensive website. With many geological constructs.

    CO2 Science

    If the MWP & LIA are allowed to be part of the geological record and the MWP was global then this modern warm period is not unusual in the least. In fact there have been many warm and many cooling periods that were global. Why do we worry so much about this one and mankinds small contrabution to it ?
     
  15. CabVet

    CabVet Question everything

    Messages:
    11,686
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Agnostic
    Follow the green line on the figure below:

    [​IMG]

    You call that a "small" contribution. 98% of the remaining scientists call it a large contribution.
     
  16. Lucy Stulz

    Lucy Stulz New Member

    Messages:
    1,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Other-Religion
    And your contention is offset by countless "attribution studies" which say you are likely incorrect.

    Your contention is not based on the science. Your contention is not based on data.

    CO2science is not a peer reviewed science source. The evidence for them being global is still not established.

    HOld it, hold it, hold it right there. IF the MWP was global (a big if and right now not in evidence), but IF it was it wouldn't change one whit what humanity has done since the mid 19th century.

    We have SINGLE HANDEDLY pumped SO MUCH FOSSIL FUEL CARBON into the atmosphere since the 1850's that it has shifted the stable isotopic composition of the atmospheric CO2 away from it's previous 10,000 year relatively stable level.

    Last I checked, CO2 is STILL a known greenhouse gas. So we IF AGW is a "false hypothesis" we will have to re-imagine almost all of physics and chemistry to account for how this massive blot of CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere CAN'T cause warming.

    In the MWP warming will be understood by OTHER mechanisms...mechanisms that have NOTHING to do with our current state of knowledge of the system as it is.

    And we know a LOT about the system today.

    It's like walking into a room and seeing a bright glow in the corner. You walk around the room and measure things and come to the conclusion that the curtains are on fire. Now this doesn't change the fact that many years in the past there could have been a LIGHT in the corner that was plugged in and glowed. But today we can measure the heat and flames and see the fire.

    But if I followed you in the room and said "Light in this room is nothing new! One day Joe put a lamp in that corner and turned it on! I bet this is EXACTLY like that!"

    You seem to be largely alone in your estimation of our "small" contribution.

    How small do you think it must be in order to SHIFT THE STABLE ISOTOPIC COMPOSITION of the atmospheric C?

    (Please let me know if you don't know what "stable isotope geochemistry" is, I will be glad to give you a nickel tour of the concept. I'm hopeful you at least know what an "isotope" is.)
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2013
  17. hdssh

    hdssh New Member

    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Anglican
    So I am new, and wading through all the history of this thread seems impractical. Maybe this point has been made somewhere, but I haven't seen it clearly.

    The physics of anthropogenic climate change are very hard to dispute ... the breadth of evidence is clearly indicative of an increased global energy (surface temperature is a poor measure of this). The only plausible explanation is human activities for most of this energy change. Its a muggs game to try refute this (but am happy to engage on that if that's where people are).

    The real issue is, IMHO, that we have a globalized society, globally connected, globally dependent, and a immoral disparity of wealth compounded by locally specific vulnerability. Vulnerability is threshold dependent ... if you are close to a threshold, you are vulnerable, because small changes push you over the edge. Any location is vulnerable to a mix of climate and non-climate stresses.

    Now the issue is that climate change is ethical problem ... it's about our choices. Our choices are what pushes systems over thresholds, and that's where impacts arise.

    So, as a Christian, how can I ethically defend a lifestyle contributing to pushing the vulnerable over thresholds, all in the name of my comfort?

    I wrote an angry blog on this ("Is this the face of stupidity" on hdssh.weebly.com), but the reflection is this: my actions contribute to a global problem of inequity, where the poor (the majority) are being impacted by the comfort demands of the minority, and our contribution to climate change is making this multi-generational.

    Just how can a Christian defend this????
     
  18. Greatcloud

    Greatcloud Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,174
    Likes Received:
    6
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Charismatic
    I'm not an Alarmist. I do not believe any disasters are coming from any AGW. AGW may or may not be happening but I do not believe very much of it is man caused. I think most of this Modern warming is natural.

    Now about your Christian viewpoint on this. The reason I can defend my non-believing status on CC is that, I am not an Alarmist. I actually do believe that AGW is an end of the world delusion.

    My Christian views about it are, we must be good stewards of the Earth. At the same time while I hold this viewpoint I also believe GOD will not let anything disasterous happen to the Earth. The whole Earth and the entire Universe for that matter are destined to end at the second coming of Jesus Christ our Lord.
     
  19. Greatcloud

    Greatcloud Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,174
    Likes Received:
    6
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Charismatic
    My contention is yes global warming , AGW in particular , is just another end of the world delusion. The notion that we are all in danger of the extiction of the whole species of mankind is IMHO, poppycock. I want, in plain English posters here to discuss in their own words , you don't even have to use facts and websites to back up those facts. I would just enjoy a discussion between equals having a dialog in their own words what is it they honestly believe on this subject.
     
  20. Lucy Stulz

    Lucy Stulz New Member

    Messages:
    1,395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Other-Religion
    Weren't enough people paying attention to your broadcasts? I say broadcasts because it doesn't appear that you hear much from the other side. You just throw out your science-less opinion and then move on.

    Why? Will you respond?

    Sorry but most of us CAN'T argue like a climate skeptic. We tend to value DATA and FACTS.

    Oh, so when you get your PhD in earth science come on back! I'd be glad to talk to you about this stuff when you've gotten to peer status.

    :thumbsup:
     
Loading...