Global Warming

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

But where are you going to plant them? Since natural forests are healthier than man-made forests, why not just leave the rainforests alone? Are you willing to live without the beef from the ranches that are the driving force behind clearing much of the forest?

We can plant trees in our yard, might help a little. Right. And plant plenty of plants. I heard somewhere that was supposed to help.

 

[durangodawood]

I can't place my vote because none of your options match my opinion - "global warming may be real but it is NOT man-made".

Opinions are like onions. They make me cry.
.
Opinion in matters like this is worthless unless you have expertise.
.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I can't place my vote because none of your options match my opinion - "global warming may be real but it is NOT man-made".

I think it's a little of both. I think the effects of global warming would happen anyways, but men an woman make it worse. Anyways I believe God will take care of it.

 

[brewmama]

We have been observing drastic increases in temperature for the last half century.

I guess you missed all the mass hysteria in the 1970's when the earth was threatened by global cooling, and scientists were coming up with all kinds of schemes to warm the earth.

 

[USincognito]

I guess you missed all the mass hysteria in the 1970's when the earth was threatened by global cooling, and scientists were coming up with all kinds of schemes to warm the earth.

Actually, that's a popular press myth promoted by deniers. There's some (two) infamous covers of Time and Newsweek that promoted an impending ice age, but they should be taken as seriously as announcements that UFOs were visiting us.

There was no mass hysteria and your claim about scientists coming up with "all kinds of schemes to warm the earth" is a flat out falsehood. Climate scientists have been concerned about warming based climate change since the 1960s.

 

[brewmama]

Actually, that's a popular press myth promoted by deniers. There's some (two) infamous covers of Time and Newsweek that promoted an impending ice age, but they should be taken as seriously as announcements that UFOs were visiting us.

There was no mass hysteria and your claim about scientists coming up with "all kinds of schemes to warm the earth" is a flat out falsehood. Climate scientists have been concerned about warming based climate change since the 1960s.

\
Sorry, but Time and Newsweek were not thought of as The National Enquirer back then. And scientists were concocting grandiose schemes that might help to keep the earth warmer. The "deniers" are on your side.

 

[Phileas]

\
Sorry, but Time and Newsweek were not thought of as The National Enquirer back then. And scientists were concocting grandiose schemes that might help to keep the earth warmer. The "deniers" are on your side.

They're not exactly peer-review either. Anyway, if you decide to continue down this line of arguement you might as well know it's a well known PRATT that has been thoroughly debunked for several years now.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s - USATODAY.com

 

[Paradoxum]

We are in a solar maximum..the more sunspots (solar storms) there are, the more radiation is expelled, creating heat.
The infamous hockey stick graph showed that CO2 increases occur 80 years AFTER a significant rise in temperature.
Venus is much closer to the sun than we are, so it naturally is much hotter than we are.It is also many more times volcanically active than we are.Using Venus as a template for our future is not viable.
It certainly doesn't hurt to limit the amount of gasses we emit,but what we try will be a drop in the bucket.
Earth has been heating and cooling in cycles since it was created..we just happen to be in a warming trend between ice ages.

So I assume most climate scientists agree with you if you are so sure?

I guess you missed all the mass hysteria in the 1970's when the earth was threatened by global cooling, and scientists were coming up with all kinds of schemes to warm the earth.

"Indeed they did. At least, a handful of scientific papers discussed the possibility of a new ice age at some point in the future, leading to some pretty sensational media coverage."

"The calls for action to prevent further human-induced global warming, by contrast, are based on an enormous body of research by thousands of scientists over more than a century that has been subjected to intense - and sometimes ferocious - scrutiny. According to the latest IPCC report, it is more than 90% certain that the world is already warming as a result of human activity."

Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

 

[Drekkan85]

\
Sorry, but Time and Newsweek were not thought of as The National Enquirer back then. And scientists were concocting grandiose schemes that might help to keep the earth warmer. The "deniers" are on your side.

Time and Newsweek aren't peer reviewed publications, and their source wasn't a peer-reviewed publication - it was a random quote by a single scientist.

For the intents and purposes of finding out what "scientists" thought, they WERE as accurate as the National Enquirer.

In this field peer review is a necessary but not sufficient criteria - if your work hasn't been peer reviewed and published then it's not applicable. If your viewpoint relies on books, blogs, magazines, websites, and TV weathermen and not peer reviewed data your opinion is worthless.

 

[durangodawood]

I vote: stop arguing with people whose notions of the natural world arise from ideology rather than observation.
.

See what I mean?
.
People bring up idiocies like "global cooling" which they could have sorted out for themselves if they were interested in reality rather than preserving an ideology.
.
Its similar to evolution. How many times can one discuss the "lack of transitional fossils" or whatever before realizing the "debate" isnt about science. Its about personal ideological attachments that trump everything.
.

 

[Malachi88]

Why freak yourself out over something you can not control. If it were so easy to change billions of minds than there would no longer be abortions, war, or people who smoke ext. Unfortunately out world is very selfish now. We have all become spoiled. Speaking for myself as well. That is why we must pray for change. In my opinion it is only getting worse everywhere. So it leads me to believe the end is near. Which is what we need. However I feel it would be sad for our Lord to come, when this world is still in shambles. He deserves a better welcoming than that. But the question is ....how do you change billions of minds?

 

[Malachi88]

Our*

 

[Wolseley]

Ah, AGW. The latest version of LCLS, or Liberal Chicken Little Syndrome™; it requires having something to be terrified out of your mind about that will never come to pass. Previous manifestations:

1950s---nuclear war.

1960s---overpopulation.

1970s---global pollution.

1980s---ozone depletion.

1990s---deforestation, water shortages.

2000s---global warming/climate change.

Don't fret, kids; ten years from now it'll be something totally different. The doomsayers have predicted the end of the world more times than back issues of The Watchtower, and nothing has happened yet.

When in danger or in doubt
Run in circles, scream and shout.

 

[freezerman2000]

Freezerman, I see you haven't commented on the basic case for global warming per the opening post. Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Do you deny that we have greatly increased the level of CO2 on our planet after the industrial era began? Do you deny that temperatures have indeed risen as the CO2 rose, just as expected?


There are a lot of claims here not supported by mainstream science.

For instance the website mentions temperature changes on Mars, which appears to be a bogus claim. See RealClimate: Global warming on Mars?.

Solar Maxima and Minama cannot account for the rapid rise in temperatures in the last 50 years. See Global Warming and Predictions of an Impending Ice Age: Sunspots — A blog on Environmental Happenings by Dean Bill Chameides


Actually it doesn't. The chart in this paper shows temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere have oscillated about +/-.2 deg C in the 900 years prior to 1900. By contrast temperatures have oscillated over about a 12 deg C range in the last 400,000 years. (see CO2 vs Temperature: Last 400,000 years ) So if historically temperatures have oscillated in a 12 degree range, and recently they have stayed steady within 0.5 deg, that is remarkably stable. That is exactly what I said. So sorry, but you haven't blown my claim "out of the water".

So, If my source is wrong to you, then your source is wrong to me...

Tell me, if the temps have been stable over the time you said, why was there a warming, then a drastic cooling within the last 1000 years?

 

[durangodawood]

1950s---nuclear war.

We did a hell of a lot politically to make sure it didnt happen. Not a false alarm there.
.

1970s---global pollution.

Ongoing chronic problem. No one thinks its the "end of the world".
.

1980s---ozone depletion.

No one thought it was the "end of the world". BUT it was considered important enough that we acted globally in the form of effective treaties to drastically reduce the most harmful emissions. This tale might have a different ending had we done nothing.
.

1990s---deforestation, water shortages.

"End of the world"??? No one thought that. Yet still an ongoing problem.
.

2000s---global warming/climate change.

A real problem, just like all of the above.
.

 

[drstevej]

June 4, 2008
"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

 

[KimberlyAA]

Since so much damage has been done and will continue to be done, there's very little we can do. I think the best way to reduce the effect would be to use cleaner energy generation such as photovoltaics, wind, wave, OTEC etc. for electricity needs. I don't see electric cars or exhaust gas recirculation being widespread internationally any time soon except in places like Brasil. Many people say petroleum is running out. Petroleum can be generated from sewage by the concentrating of sewage sludge, digestion by alkalis and heating under pressure to produce long-chain hydrocarbons of crude oil. It's quite an energy efficient process. The petrol can then be obtained from fractional distillation. Researchers have also carried out experiments in converting coal to crude oil around a 6 year period. They said :

In many geological situations much longer time intervals are available but evidently the molecular mechanism of the decomposition is little changed by the additional time. Thus, within sedimentary basins, heating times of several years are sufficient for the generation of oil and gas from suitable precursors. The precise point in this range of times from seconds to years, at which the products adequately resemble natural gases and/or oils, remains to be established. Heating times of the order of years during recent times may even improve the petroleum prospects of particular areas. Flooding of a reservoir with migrating hydrocarbons is more likely to produce a reservoir filled to the spill point than slow accumulation over a long geological period with a possibility of loss ...’.4

Crude oil is also being formed under the ocean now in the waters of the Gulf Of California :

‘The oil is being formed from the unusually rapid breakdown of organic debris by extraordinarily extensive heat flowing through the sediments, offering scientists a singular opportunity to see how petroleum is formed....Ordinarily oil has been thought to form over millions of years whereas in this instance the process is probably occurring in thousands of years.... The activity is not only manufacturing petroleum at relatively high speed but also, by application of volcanic heat, breaking it down into the constituents of gasoline and other petroleum products as in a refinery.’

These might provide some hope for future generations but petrol still releases harmful gases so I think it would be best if it's use was minimized. After studying these things as an environmental science student, you realize how much it's difficult to implement alternative energy sources due to cost implications, geographical and topographical location of communities and constancy of the energy source. Looks like things are only gonna get worse including climate conditions.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Anyways I believe God will take care of it.

And should we also dump raw sewage into rivers, expecting God to take care of it for the folks downstream?

And should we just let mold accumulate in our kitchens, figuring God will take care of it?

I would think God wants us to take care of this world. Filling the earth with pollutants, and saying God will take care of it does not seem wise.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I guess you missed all the mass hysteria in the 1970's when the earth was threatened by global cooling, and scientists were coming up with all kinds of schemes to warm the earth.

Ah yes I certainly did miss that.

Oh, and you missed it too, right?

Do you have any evidence of mass hysteria about global cooling?

See RealClimate: The global cooling myth .

 

[drjean]

I can't place my vote because none of your options match my opinion - "global warming may be real but it is NOT man-made".

I voted it as a hoax because I agree, my real answer is what he said

To terrorize the world, make some of the countries tow the line while others don't... well, from what I have read and investigated, it's a political ploy.

Back in the early 1800s countries of the world had a meeting to try and find something to bring the New America under control... and they voted on making the environment an issue... something no one would fear or be against (taking care of it.)

To take the world's position regarding this isn't trusting God, imo. I recall when we were terrorized (modern term for it) about the coming ICE AGE. I doubt they meant the movie sequels.

To imagine that we haven't taken care of God's creation.... implies, to me, a Deist view. That's ok I guess, just not mine. To imply that we are running out of resources does irk me though, because that means that my Sovereign God failed to count on their being some 14 million people to have lived, like he forgot to make enough. No, there is plenty... it's just that those who wish to control the world won't let all the nations USE what resources they have.

For every "global warming" figure, there is at least one "non" global warming. By taking a course in college on statistics I learned full well how stats are manipulated. Include in that manipulation the possibility of a goal of not telling the whole truth, and voila' we have a fearful, Godless world view.

For instance, while the ice melt on one side of the North / Pole might be less... the ice expanse on the other grew... and in another case, the ice is much deeper than it was before. As for the heat, yes, it's hot all over in the US right now...but we also just had record cold temperatures too...

Anyway, God tells me not to fear, He is in control. I just have to trust Him on this.