I don't know. Sounds like you may be contradicting yourself. Almost sounds like "chocolate isn't chocolate cake, but chocolate affects chocolate cake".
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't know. Sounds like you may be contradicting yourself. Almost sounds like "chocolate isn't chocolate cake, but chocolate affects chocolate cake".Anyone who says that is wrong. Local weather may correlate with global climate patterns, but reducing that to "weather is climate" is incorrect.
Also important: climate affects local weather. Changes in the global average temperature modify long-standing large-scale weather patterns (i.e. the jet stream). This can result in large variations in local weather as, for example, cold arctic air that historically stayed in Canada gets blown down into the Great Plains and Texas.
I've never heard of global warming being a religious issue. That's news to me. If some Christians make it way you'd have to ask them.Nope, that was global warming as well, which produces extremes of temperature in both directions,
But here is a question for you: why do you think global warming has become a religious issue? Why do some Christians see AGW as a threat to their faith rather than a problem for all of us to solve?
Seems a waste of money to pay a team of scientists to tell us that. Any farmer can tell you there have been, and will be, large temperature swings.Your unprecedented low temps were predicted - the model predicted large temperature swings, not just in one direction.
Wait, what? That assumes that anthropogenic global warming is actually happening. The general right-wing Christian theme in this forum is that global warming is not happening, or at least is not contributed to by human activity and that mainstream Christians who support action against global warming are apostate.Because the mainstream (Pop or aka 'false') Christians are promoting an indulgent lifestyle that is directly responsible for increased greenhouse emissions.
They erroneously believe that God wants them to have such lifestyles when Jesus Christ in the Bible keeps preaching about restraint.
Other religions teaches restraint. The actual teachings of Jesus in the Bible also preaches restraint (unlike the preaching of mainstream (false) Christianity). Scientists are also telling about restraint.
The proof of global warming will force the mainstream (false) Christians to revise their doctrine of indulgence which is essentially admittance of a mistake. A very big one.
From the article:Rapid reduction in fossil fuel burning urgently needed to preserve liveable conditions, say scientists, as climate damage deepens.
2023 smashes record for world’s hottest year by huge margin
Rapid reduction in fossil fuel burning urgently needed to preserve liveable conditions, say scientists, as climate damage deepens
2023 “smashed” the record for the hottest year by a huge margin, providing “dramatic testimony” of how much warmer and more dangerous today’s climate is from the cooler one in which human civilisation developed.
The planet was 1.48C hotter in 2023 compared with the period before the mass burning of fossil fuels ignited the climate crisis. The figure is very close to the 1.5C temperature target set by countries in Paris in 2015
Guardian January 9th 2024
I think we need to take this seriously. We are on the edge.
You already know that weather is local and immediate while climate is far longer ranging. Ask your farmer if they have noticed long term changes in zone. Your farmer probably appreciates having a team of scientists informing him about what to expect for long term planning.Seems a waste of money to pay a team of scientists to tell us that. Any farmer can tell you there have been, and will be, large temperature swings.
You can see the causation here: lead to the release of this greenhouse gasFrom the article:
"The long-term warming trend is unquestionably being driven by human activities - mainly from burning fossil fuels, which releases planet-warming gases like carbon dioxide."
From the reportedly supporting article:
"Burning fossil fuels and chopping down trees lead to the release of this greenhouse gas. Both activities exploded after the 19th Century, so it's unsurprising that atmospheric CO2 increased over the same period."
Logical error: correlation does not imply causation.
Procreating produces infants, not carbon dioxide.For instance, another human activity, ie., procreation, correlates well with increased CO2.
The physics of the greenhouse effect is well established. Climate scientists have assessed lots of different factors that affect average global temperatures. Anthropogenic causes like fossil fuel burning are the largest contributor to the observed warming.I'm not disputing the facts but only the "unmistakenly" claim that fossil fuel burning is the main cause of global warming.
How so? "Climate" represents an average of conditions measured across an area over time (i.e. a Mediterranean climate signifies a region with warm, dry summers and cool, wet winters), while "weather" is a description of the conditions at a particular location and a particular time (i.e. "What's the weather like?" "It's snowing now.").I don't know. Sounds like you may be contradicting yourself.
Not contradictory. Chocolate is not chocolate cake - chocolate is an ingredient in chocolate cake (it affects it). That's not a really good analogy for the relationship between weather and climate though.Almost sounds like "chocolate isn't chocolate cake, but chocolate affects chocolate cake".
If that was the only evidence you might have a point. But what's so bad about cutting back fossil fuel use? I can see why energy companies might not want to, but what I don't understand why so many Christians are on board with them.From the article:
"The long-term warming trend is unquestionably being driven by human activities - mainly from burning fossil fuels, which releases planet-warming gases like carbon dioxide."
From the reportedly supporting article:
"Burning fossil fuels and chopping down trees lead to the release of this greenhouse gas. Both activities exploded after the 19th Century, so it's unsurprising that atmospheric CO2 increased over the same period."
Logical error: correlation does not imply causation.
Correlation does imply causation. I believe what you meant was correlation does not equal causation.From the article:
"The long-term warming trend is unquestionably being driven by human activities - mainly from burning fossil fuels, which releases planet-warming gases like carbon dioxide."
From the reportedly supporting article:
"Burning fossil fuels and chopping down trees lead to the release of this greenhouse gas. Both activities exploded after the 19th Century, so it's unsurprising that atmospheric CO2 increased over the same period."
Logical error: correlation does not imply causation.
For instance, another human activity, ie., procreation, correlates well with increased CO2. The estimated population of the planet in 1850 is 1.2 billion. The 2023 population estimate is 8.1 billion or nearly a 4-fold increase. Unfortunately, we don't count animal population but it's fair to assume an increase in their numbers as well. If it breathes and defecates then it adds "planet-warming gases". There may be others causes as well such as increased volcanic activity. Science should not stop investigating when the data collected supports a biased narrative.
I'm not disputing the facts but only the "unmistakenly" claim that fossil fuel burning is the main cause of global warming.
My home heating bill also correlates well with the CO2 increase data. So, global warming maybe a plus for me. And if the value of my property increases because it is now "beachfront ocean-view", I won't complain.
Well, maybe. But you weren't referring to the planet when you said 'where I live'.Well, I live on the same globe as you. Presumably.
Something that seems disingenuous is like, just two years ago, where I live we had unprecedented low temperatures for unprecedented duration.
You might have heard of it in the news; it resulted in many deaths and much property damage. If I mention that, people will say "weather is not climate". But if we have a hot spell, then "weather is climate".
The causation claimed but not demonstrated is that the cause of global warming is "mainly from burning fossil fuels".You can see the causation here: lead to the release of this greenhouse gas
Do human beings breath and defecate? Does a 4-fold increase in human beings contribute to greenhouse gases?Procreating produces infants, not carbon dioxide.
That is the claim but remains undemonstrated.The physics of the greenhouse effect is well established. Climate scientists have assessed lots of different factors that affect average global temperatures. Anthropogenic causes like fossil fuel burning are the largest contributor to the observed warming.
? That's the problem but it is not mine. I'm looking for some evidence that the cause of global warming is "mainly from burning fossil fuels".If that was the only evidence you might have a point.
Do you not see that aggressively cutting back fossil fuel use w/o a viable alternative would cause human suffering?But what's so bad about cutting back fossil fuel use? I can see why energy companies might not want to, but what I don't understand why so many Christians are on board with them.
Nope.Correlation does imply causation. I believe what you meant was correlation does not equal causation.
No. The citation claims that the cause of global warming is "mainly from burning fossil fuels".However they are not starting the burning fossil fuels correlats with increased CO2, they are directly stating that burning fossil fuel produces CO2.
Do you seriously doubt this? If so, you should be able to offer some reasons?No. The citation claims that the cause of global warming is "mainly from burning fossil fuels".
It may not have been contained in the OP, but it has been demonstrated.That is the claim but remains undemonstrated.
That's not the way science works.Do you seriously doubt this? If so, you should be able to offer some reasons?
Show my the evidence.It may not have been contained in the OP, but it has been demonstrated.
There's a link to the 5th IPCC report here.Show my the evidence.
Yes, I agree that human activities increase GHG emissions."Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases ...
The report is a summary, and it summarizes the severity of the human impact - with citations and references - in section 1.3.4. I would suggest reading that section as well as the referenced studies and reports. Since it's been long-established that the burning of fossil fuels is the prime anthropogenic contribution to climate change, you might have to go several layers deep into the citations to find one that explicitly states that.What I don't see in the report is evidence that human burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause. Do you have a link to any peer reviews of the report?
I don't see in 1.3.4 the evidence that human burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming. Kindly copy/paste the relevant sentences.The report is a summary, and it summarizes the severity of the human impact - with citations and references - in section 1.3.4. I would suggest reading that section as well as the referenced studies and reports. Since it's been long-established that the burning of fossil fuels is the prime anthropogenic contribution to climate change, you might have to go several layers deep into the citations to find one that explicitly states that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?