Global warming and anti-evolutionism

[Mallon]

The recent thread on YECism and global warming in the creationist subforum (http://www.christianforums.com/t4743108-global-warming-creationist-view.html) prompts this new thread.

Increasingly, it seems to me that the creationist response to global warming is, "It's still cold here -- what a bunch of hooey!" It strikes me, though, that, like their position on anti-evolutionism, many creationists are misrepresenting what global warming says.
I'm no expert on the subject, but I do know that the theory of global warming (perhaps more appropriately called 'climate change') does not purport a uniform increase in temperature across the globe. It says that the average tempature of the earth will rise in the coming years, with varying, non-uniform extremes in temperature occurring in localized settings. And yes, scientists do recognize the fluctuating climactic patterns as revealed by the rock record. They are the ones who developed the model (which extends back to the Palaeozoic) which creationists have now exapted to support a post-Flood ice age. But scientists also have their reasons for believing that the recent rise in global temperatures has been exacerbated by human activity.
For what it's worth, as little as a year ago, I also doubted humanity's effect on global warming. For one semester in 2005, I worked in a micropalaeontology lab that consistently yielded results denying human impact on climate, based on the distribution of foraminiferans in lake sediment cores. Take that for what you will, but the extreme weather in Canada this past winter has got me second-guessing. The unexpected blizzards along the west coast, the rediculously mild temperatures in Ottawa, and the southward migration of polar bears due to glacial melting is enough to make me question my presuppositions.
In fact, I'm a little surprised that more YECs aren't touting global warming as a sign of the end times, given that it is expect to lead to increased famine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_and_agriculture).

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

 

[gluadys]

I'm no expert on the subject, but I do know that the theory of global warming (perhaps more appropriately called 'climate change') does not purport a uniform increase in temperature across the globe. It says that the average tempature of the earth will rise in the coming years, with varying, non-uniform extremes in temperature occurring in localized settings.

Yes, averages hide non-uniform effects and are also hidden by short-term fluctuations in weather as opposed to the long-term effects of climate.

For example, one of the interesting possibilities is that a near-future effect of global "warming" may be a significant cooling of the climate in Europe. The reason for this is that the melting of glaciers and the polar ice cap will release enough fresh water into the North Atlantic to disrupt the flow of the Gulf Stream which gives Europe a relatively mild climate as compared to similar latitudes in Canada and Siberia.

For what it's worth, as little as a year ago, I also doubted humanity's effect on global warming.

I think it is helpful to realize that scientists have gone through the same progression. Back in the 1980s, when it was first suggested, the question was: is this really a long-term climate change or just a fluctuation?

By the 1990s, it was clear that the direction of climate change was real and consistent, but there was still doubt about the extent to which human activity impacted it.

By the time the Third Assessment Report of the International Panel on Climate Change came out, there was no doubt about the fact of human impact.

And now the recently issued Fourth Assessment Report suggests that up to 90% of recent global warming is due to human impact, specifically the burning of fossil fuels.

This progression has come about through intensive study of more and more data. The rest of us are just catching up to what those working first-hand on the problem have already seen in the evidence.

I'm a little surprised that more YECs aren't touting global warming as a sign of the end times, given that it is expect to lead to increased famine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_and_agriculture).

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

This surprises me too. Given the extreme weather conditions we can now expect over the next century, I think the next few generations will have no difficulty believing they are living in apocalyptic times. I also think it inevitable that as less and less of the surface of the earth becomes habitable, (due to rising sea levels in coastal areas and increasing desertification inland), there will also be a great deal more conflict--wars and rumours of wars--as people fight for their share of dwindling resources. Another consequence, the movement of more tropical diseases into now temperate zones where not only people, but indigenous plants and animals have little immunity to them, will lead to more epidemics. So famine, pestilence, war and death: all four horsemen of the apocalypse riding at full tilt. You really would think prophecy-oriented churches would be embracing the scientific conclusions on climate change as evidence the end is near.


P.S. btw, in contrast to last month, Ottawa is now in a deep-freeze which is expected to last most of February.

 

[Deamiter]

I'm pretty convinced that the connection between YECism and anti-global warming is due primarily to the "religious right's" fight to associate their religious views with the American Republican party. There's really little question that this happened starting with Reagan -- and I'm not in any way arguing that their positions are wrong BECAUSE of the association (quite a logical fallacy there) but I think that's the extent of the connection. Statistically, YECs tend to be politically conservative (in North America anyway) and political conservatives tend to fight the concept of global warming.

Funny how just recently, a bunch of scientists were offered thousands of dollars to question global warming by a group funded by Exxon-Mobile and run in part by 20 or so people who were previously appointed by Bush to various places in the government.

No, I don't see a vast conspiracy or anything, but there's no question in my mind that oil companies want as little legislation related to global warming as possible to maximize profits. The Republican party is closely tied to oil companies both politically (they tend to pass bills that maximize large business profits) and personally (Cheney's connection to oil companies is pretty obvious). In a propaganda war (as is much of politics) people who tend to agree with the Republican party (including YECs) will similarly tend to agree with many of the things said by those politicians (including serious questioning of global warming).

 

[Mallon]

P.S. btw, in contrast to last month, Ottawa is now in a deep-freeze which is expected to last most of February.

Aye. Having just moved from Ottawa last year, and my family left behind there, I've been paying close attention to the weather in Ottawa. Good to see the Canal finally open for skating, though!

Climbed to +10 degrees C in Calgary here yesterday.

 

[gluadys]

Aye. Having just moved from Ottawa last year, and my family left behind there, I've been paying close attention to the weather in Ottawa. Good to see the Canal finally open for skating, though!

Climbed to +10 degrees C in Calgary here yesterday.

And it is -11C in Toronto today! -25 with windchill factored in.

A couple of other thoughts. First on the unequal distribution of climate change. We now know the impact in the polar regions will be much greater than in tropical regions. A 1 degree rise in average temperature at the equator will create a 12 degree rise at the poles. That is why a lot of the symptoms of global warming are showing up first in the Arctic.

Also, I was reminded by a documentary I watched last night, that (contrary to what one might expect) Arctic and Antarctic waters are far more prolific than warmer waters and support much larger populations of aquatic species and others (such as birds) that rely on them.

So the warming of the polar seas will have a serious negative effect on the survivability of many species. Polar bears are just one of the first to be affected.

 

[Brennan]

Global warming means more energy driving the weather. That doesn't just mean more heat. It means more rain, wind, storms, flooding and pretty much everything else. Reports of all sorts of extreme weather are becoming more and more commonplace as a result.

What caught my eye as a particular corollary in this to the YEC/Evolution 'debate' was the mention of belief amongst climateologists in the 1970's that we were descending into an Ice Age. It is my understanding that this was by no means the scientific concensus at the time, far from it in fact. So there we have yet another misrepresentation of science to put up with...

 

[theFijian]

Interestingly the science behind climate-change predictions and the 'evolutionary sciences' seems to be similar threats to the fundamentalist right in America. The evolutionary sciences threaten their political influence and the Climate-change sciences threatens their material comfort.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I think the politicisation of Global warming is the biggest threat life on Earth has ever faced.

I'm a right winger... pretty extreme in some facets of my politics actually, but when i see my fellows on the right burying their heads in the sand about this issue, it makes me want to scream. What it makes me want to do even more is drag them here tio Australia and force them to see the dustbowls that used to be farms, and the sand pits that used to be dams, after our 5 YEARS of drought, the longest on record... and they can enjoy our current temperatures, which are recording new all time highs, and all time highest averages on a daily basis

 

[Deamiter]

Global warming means more energy driving the weather. That doesn't just mean more heat. It means more rain, wind, storms, flooding and pretty much everything else. Reports of all sorts of extreme weather are becoming more and more commonplace as a result.

What caught my eye as a particular corollary in this to the YEC/Evolution 'debate' was the mention of belief amongst climateologists in the 1970's that we were descending into an Ice Age. It is my understanding that this was by no means the scientific concensus at the time, far from it in fact. So there we have yet another misrepresentation of science to put up with...

My understanding is a bit different, though I agree it was never really unchallenged in the scientific community. When we first got really nice data from ice cores, it became apparent that the Earth has been going through a cycle and that it's overdue for a cold phase. The immediate conclusion was that we can expect an ice age in the near future. Of course, it took just a couple years for the scientists to realize that the reason we're "overdue" in the cycle is because we've been strongly affecting the environment since the beginning of agriculture and even more in the industrial revolution.

Of course at that point, the media had already hyped up the initial findings and the public (who never bother to check their sources) ended up thinking that scientists are just guessing. This of course was all helped along by the great oil propaganda machine that's still in full force today offering $10,000 to scientists to publicly question the concensus of global warming.

 

[theFijian]

What it makes me want to do even more is drag them here tio Australia and force them to see the dustbowls that used to be farms, and the sand pits that used to be dams, after our 5 YEARS of drought, the longest on record... and they can enjoy our current temperatures, which are recording new all time highs, and all time highest averages on a daily basis

Indeed it is at the extremes that the effects are most noticable. I've just come back from a week in the Swiss Alps and there is a distinct lack of snow and the glaciers are visible (they should be covered in snow) and and getting smaller.

 

[busterdog]

I think the politicisation of Global warming is the biggest threat life on Earth has ever faced.

I'm a right winger... pretty extreme in some facets of my politics actually, but when i see my fellows on the right burying their heads in the sand about this issue, it makes me want to scream. What it makes me want to do even more is drag them here tio Australia and force them to see the dustbowls that used to be farms, and the sand pits that used to be dams, after our 5 YEARS of drought, the longest on record... and they can enjoy our current temperatures, which are recording new all time highs, and all time highest averages on a daily basis

I agree. As far as the "human cause" is concerned, that is like letting the family burn to death while we sit back and decide whether it was arson. I also want to scream that the cause is not really all that relevant any more. Coastal populations are going to have major trouble and need to build now for trouble later.

We can't build our economy on fiat money and a refinancing spin cycle. We need to grow food locally and make things again. We need renewable energy, simply because it is local production of energy and to allow for recovery from disaster, if for no other reason. The grids are susceptible to trouble. Our food distribution is messed and susceptible to trouble.

Being on the far right, some of us YECs are probably just iconoclasts like me, and this global warming thing can fit that mold.

As for trying to analyze us YECs, let me warn the author of the OP again, "[SIZE=-1]Hannibal Lecter: A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti." [/SIZE]

 

[RenHoek]

What I find interesting from an evolutionary timeline standpoint is that Earth has supposedly formed from a molten mass, underwent at least one ice age. How does the current few degrees fluctuation lead us to believe we are the issue?

As an aside, it makes me very happy to see the pucker looks on peoples faces when I say it is cold and therefore global warming is debunked.

 

[Mallon]

What I find interesting from an evolutionary timeline standpoint is that Earth has supposedly formed from a molten mass, underwent at least one ice age.

Science says it has undergone at least four major ice ages, in fact.

How does the current few degrees fluctuation lead us to believe we are the issue?

You make it sound as though scientists say, "Hey! It's 1.2 degrees warmer this year than in previous years! Humans are to blame!" Do you really think there is no more science to it than this? Certainly, many YECs do.
There are many good reasons to suppose humans are fueling climate change. If you're sincere about learning more, you can start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
... and follow the references therein.

As an aside, it makes me very happy to see the pucker looks on peoples faces when I say it is cold and therefore global warming is debunked.

It's hard to know when people are serious about this. If you take a gander at the global warming thread in the creationist subforum, that's what everyone there is saying. "It's cold here, therefore global warming is false, and since Jesus is coming soon let's not worry about burning fossil fuels." It's rediculous.

 

[gluadys]

What I find interesting from an evolutionary timeline standpoint is that Earth has supposedly formed from a molten mass, underwent at least one ice age. How does the current few degrees fluctuation lead us to believe we are the issue?

One is the rapidity of the change. Earth has been through several ice ages, and several warm periods before, but the rate of change has been relatively gradual, so many species have been able to adapt to the changes. But this time the rate of change is much more rapid, so this indicates and additional factor.

The second is the rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. There is a well-established correlation between the average global temperature and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Today we have as much more CO2 in the atmosphere over the beginning of the 20th century as that time had over the end of the last ice age. In short we have added almost as much CO2 to the atmosphere in the last century (most of it since WWII) as was added by nature over the last 10,000 years.

In his documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore points out that the difference between the last ice age and the early 20th century was the difference between the area of New York being buried under a mile of ice and the metropolis of today. If we have now added that much more CO2 to the atmosphere, what will that mean for the climate of the New York area a century from now.

One thing it is certain to mean is a lot of the city under water.

As the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC points out, there is virtually no other explanation for the recent rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 than human use of fossil fuels.

As an aside, it makes me very happy to see the pucker looks on peoples faces when I say it is cold and therefore global warming is debunked.

As long as it's tongue in cheek and not denial.

 

[RenHoek]

One is the rapidity of the change. Earth has been through several ice ages, and several warm periods before, but the rate of change has been relatively gradual, so many species have been able to adapt to the changes. But this time the rate of change is much more rapid, so this indicates and additional factor.

How exactly do we determine the rates in prehistoric changes?
Real question, not snide.

The second is the rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. There is a well-established correlation between the average global temperature and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

There is also a correlation between CO2 and the growth of plant life to utilize it. Man God is smart. He knows our idiocy before we create it.

As I understand it, it is the CO2 that causes heat that causes water vapor in the atmosphere. The vapor is the real issue and it is not agreed as to how much vapor is produced as it relates to the CO2.

As the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC points out, there is virtually no other explanation for the recent rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 than human use of fossil fuels.

Nothing the UN does is worth the methane produced on an average farm. You will have to excuse my skepticism when it comes to global alarmism. I have looked at both sides of this issue and remain unconvinced that humans add anything more than a can of pop in a torrent.

I am also always on guard when it comes to rash actions that need to occur now now now before we are all doomed. This is almost always an attempt to get people to act before they think. I have thought, and I am unimpressed.

I might just let my car idle in the driveway all night. That too is tongue in cheek.

 

[RenHoek]

It's hard to know when people are serious about this. If you take a gander at the global warming thread in the creationist subforum, that's what everyone there is saying. "It's cold here, therefore global warming is false, and since Jesus is coming soon let's not worry about burning fossil fuels." It's rediculous.

I have made the determination between marco and micro climate evaluation. I am far more interested in newer fuels due to the strategic disadvantage that we have placed ourselves at in the world. We are so dependant on external forces/nations (most of which hate us) that we risk being devastated with a relatively minor attack at the right spot.

I think this would be a much more acceptable means to convince people to change, if change is the goal.

 

[Deamiter]

How exactly do we determine the rates in prehistoric changes?
Real question, not snide.

Calibrated ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica mostly. There are yearly layers down some tens of thousands of years that are verified as yearly by looking at the trace records of major events like atomic bombs, volcanic eruptions and meteorite impacts. They also record the well-known ~11-year sunspot cycle and longer cycles that were predicted long before ice-core data was obtained and which give approximate dates to hundreds of thousands of years ago beyond the point where yearly layers are visible.

These ice cores also happen to have air bubbles in them which can be used to determine the exact composition of the atmosphere at the time of freezing. The structure of the ice and amount and makeup of the impurities gives the temperature.

It's all very fascinating and well worth the research if you're really interested in how scientists come to the conclusions they do.

The second is the rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. There is a well-established correlation between the average global temperature and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

There is also a correlation between CO2 and the growth of plant life to utilize it. Man God is smart. He knows our idiocy before we create it.

How has such a correlation been measured? Are you not aware that humans are destroying vast carbon sinks in forests and rainforests? I've heard from a number of sources (Scientific American and New Scientist primarily) that the amount of C02 plant life captures and holds is decreasing significantly due to our distruction of major sinks. Do you have a source for this claim that plant life has correlated with CO2 levels and perhaps for the implied claim that as CO2 levels have skyrocketed since the industrial revolution, plant life has increased with it?

As I understand it, it is the CO2 that causes heat that causes water vapor in the atmosphere. The vapor is the real issue and it is not agreed as to how much vapor is produced as it relates to the CO2.

An increase in water vapor is not the "real issue" it's temperature increase itself. Vast areas of ocean have become uninhabitable dead zones where algae has flourished due to just a couple degrees of increased temperature and sucked the oxygen out faster than it could be replaced. Coral reefs have been bleached as the colorful fauna have died and left the coral itself in danger of dying, again due to temperature. And yes, temperature will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere in some places, but it will also make many deserts even dryer as most of that increased humidity will be dumped on areas that already get more precipitation.

Nothing the UN does is worth the methane produced on an average farm. You will have to excuse my skepticism when it comes to global alarmism. I have looked at both sides of this issue and remain unconvinced that humans add anything more than a can of pop in a torrent.

If I showed you calculations of global natural CO2 production compared to global industrial CO2 emissions and showed that it is more than a can of pop in a torrent, would that convince you? If not, why not? Your feeling on the UN is your own business, but why throw out the findings of the vast majority of scientists who are not paid by oil companies to make public counter-claims?

I am also always on guard when it comes to rash actions that need to occur now now now before we are all doomed. This is almost always an attempt to get people to act before they think. I have thought, and I am unimpressed.

Yes there are extremists -- both those who say that nothing's happening and that we'll all die in a few decades. But why would you base your entire opinion on the topic of global warming based on the vocal extremists? Why not follow the concensus of the community of scientists who study the issue professionally?

 

[gluadys]

How exactly do we determine the rates in prehistoric changes?
Real question, not snide.

If we couldn't measure such things we wouldn't even know there had been an ice age. Ice cores, as it happens, are one means of checking on the CO2 of the past fairly directly--by direct measurement of the air bubbles trapped in the ice. But there are other means of approximating temperature and climate of various time periods as well. Find a good environmental or climatological site and send them an inquiry.

There is also a correlation between CO2 and the growth of plant life to utilize it. Man God is smart. He knows our idiocy before we create it.

As I understand it, it is the CO2 that causes heat that causes water vapor in the atmosphere. The vapor is the real issue and it is not agreed as to how much vapor is produced as it relates to the CO2.

Indeed there is, but one doesn't cancel out the other. What do you mean by water vapour being the real issue? If it is CO2 that governs the production of water vapour, then it is still the CO2 that is the issue.

Nothing the UN does is worth the methane produced on an average farm.

Well the science work is being done by scientists who are not beholden to the UN. If there is any political pressure on a scientist (and there is) it comes from the government that delegated him/her to the Panel. So some scientists will be pressured one way and some another way depending on competing national interests. That is why the final wording of the assessment reports require unanimous consent. Every one of over 300 scientists from over 100 countries with different personal opinions and national interests, must agree that the statements are accurate and fair.

One thing that says to me is that, if there is a measure of error, it is likely in being too conservative, not too alarmist. Climate change is happening much more rapidly than was predicted 5-10 years ago.

You will have to excuse my skepticism when it comes to global alarmism. I have looked at both sides of this issue and remain unconvinced that humans add anything more than a can of pop in a torrent.

Even to speak of "both sides" at this stage of the game shows you have not kept up with reality.

I am also always on guard when it comes to rash actions that need to occur now now now before we are all doomed. This is almost always an attempt to get people to act before they think. I have thought, and I am unimpressed.

I don't know about the USA, but in Canada and Europe ordinary citizens are well ahead of the politicos and we want them to stop dragging their feet. Lots of people have thought about this, and in Canada that has translated into 80% public support for Kyoto, even knowing that it is just a first step.

I might just let my car idle in the driveway all night. That too is tongue in cheek.

Go for it while you can. When the politicians get off their butts, you would likely be arrested if you tried.

 

[Mallon]

Hey, if the Canadian Conservative government admits to global warning and feels the need to do something about it sooner than later, there must be something to the science.

 

[Deamiter]

I have made the determination between marco and micro climate evaluation. I am far more interested in newer fuels due to the strategic disadvantage that we have placed ourselves at in the world. We are so dependant on external forces/nations (most of which hate us) that we risk being devastated with a relatively minor attack at the right spot.

I think this would be a much more acceptable means to convince people to change, if change is the goal.

Whether for good or for worse, scientists aren't engaged in a propaganda war and actually tend to suck at convincing the general public of anything. On the plus side, it is BECAUSE they (we) are focused primarily on facts and supported conclusions and aren't all that interested in the average Joe's opinion on their research. Joe might disagree, but he can't support his disagreement and CERTAINLY can't cite any of his sources for said disagreement!

On the negative side, this allows politicians and industry to influence national policy simply by presenting the issue as an "ongoing debate." They don't have to convince other scientists in their field or back up their conclusions rigorously, they just have to sound plausable enough to the average politician that those who find their dissent convenient will be able to justify actions contrary to the scientific concensus.

I totally agree, "selling" alternative fuel sources as a way to get free from foreign oil is probably a wonderful strategy given that our current enemy (always gotta have one!) is the Middle East. Of course even that gets readily politicized as we turn to the already-inefficient ethanol from the incredibly inefficient source of corn mainly because politicians in states that grow corn get reelected by funneling tax-money to their farmers...

My solution is to educate the public and get as many of them through higher education as possible. We need a general public who is CAPABLE of looking up claims and who realizes the importance of investigating original articles when news stories sound particularly fantastic (as they always do). Barring that, we're locked in a reactionary propaganda war where we elect people who seem to fight against the (now exposed) past propaganda while spinning their own.