Global Warming and Evolution

[True_Blue]

Following up on Psudopod's point, what about areas of the US that will flood? Or other first world countries? In addition to the 3rd world countries, obviously. I mean, if losing one city in Louisiana caused a huge uproar and strain to deal with refugees, how bad do you think it will be if we lose large parts of Florida and Maryland? (only some of the East Coast examples) How much of a strain will go on the oh-so-precious economy then?

Metherion

At the beginning of this thread, I talked about how when I was in grade school during the 1980s, the global warming fanatics were saying that the major cities near the ocean would be flooded by many feet of water unless we stopped putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Of course, that was before China entered the Industrial Revolution and emitted far more CO2 into the atmosphere than anyone expected. And when the Year 2000 rolled around, oceans haven't risen even a few inches. I conclude that global warming theorists have absolutely no credibility and that their future predictions should be likewise ignored.

 

[TeddyKGB]

At the beginning of this thread, I talked about how when I was in grade school during the 1980s, the global warming fanatics were saying that the major cities near the ocean would be flooded by many feet of water unless we stopped putting CO2 into the atmosphere. Of course, that was before China entered the Industrial Revolution and emitted far more CO2 into the atmosphere than anyone expected. And when the Year 2000 rolled around, oceans haven't risen even a few inches. I conclude that global warming theorists have absolutely no credibility and that their future predictions should be likewise ignored.

Have you gotten around to providing sources for these rather outlandish claims? I was in grade school in the 80s and don't remember this at all.

While you're at it, get familiar with the fallacies of poisoning the well and hasty generalization.

 

[LightHorseman]

You know what the ultimate irony here is?

The OPer is making a warning about believing something "just because lots of other people and authority figures believe it"

If pressed, I'm sure one of the reasons the OPer would give for being a literalist Christian is that... "lots of other people and authority figures believe it"

 

[True_Blue]

Have you gotten around to providing sources for these rather outlandish claims? I was in grade school in the 80s and don't remember this at all.

While you're at it, get familiar with the fallacies of poisoning the well and hasty generalization.

TeddyKGB, the source is myself. I saw what I saw and heard what I heard. You can do your own research if it suits you. I was paying attention in school.

 

[thaumaturgy]

At the beginning of this thread, I talked about how when I was in grade school during the 1980s, the global warming fanatics were saying that the major cities near the ocean would be flooded by many feet of water unless we stopped putting CO2 into the atmosphere.

It is likely that much of the rise in sea level has been related to the concurrent rise in global temperature over the last 100 years. On this time scale, the warming and the consequent thermal expansion of the oceans may account for about 2-7 cm of the observed sea level rise, while the observed retreat of glaciers and ice caps may account for about 2-5 cm.
(SOURCE)

Now I know that 2 to 5 cm doesn't scare you, nor does the fact that the globe is now, on average warm enough to expand the volume of the oceans by 2 to 7 cm. I don't know why that wouldn't be a concern.

But if you weren't concerned in the 1980's then you weren't informed about the topic.

Here's a nifty quote from a 1984 EPA report:

Coastal geologists are now suggesting that the thirty centimeter (one foot) rise in sea level that has
taken place along much of the U.S. coast in the last century could be responsible for the serious erosion​

problems confronting many coastal communities.'(SOURCE)

But you make it sound as if there was some immediate problem in the 1980's that failed to materialize. I will contend that in 1984 the scientists were indeed thinking in terms not of within the next couple of years but on a somewhat longer term which is still quite a concern:

Furthermore, according to the National Academy of
Sciences, the expected doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could raise the
earth's average surface temperature 1.5-4.50C (3-80F) in the next century. Glaciologists have suggested that
the sea could rise five to seven meters (approximately twenty feet) over the next several centuries from the​

resulting disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet.(ibid)

Now I know this is one of your favorite strawmen so it's hard to tear it apart for you, but it really is my pleasure.

As of this 1984 report the first table in Chapt 3 shows a conservative estimate of 4.8cm ocean level rise by 2000.

Granted we are not at 4.8cm, we obviously aren't that far off. I would be very interested to see your source for the "feet of water".

Now, I will readily grant you, if we allow global warming to accelerate so as to really speed up the Greenland ice sheet and other land-based ice will result in feet of rising and massive displacement of so many people, all the "Economic" talk on this board will look like a drop in the bucket.

Of course, that was before China entered the Industrial Revolution and emitted far more CO2 into the atmosphere than anyone expected.

Who would have thought another country would grow the balls and want to be an advanced first-world economic power? It's a mystery why they didn't just want to sit in their rice paddies and be happy and poor! What is with them? Where do they get off?

And when the Year 2000 rolled around, oceans haven't risen even a few inches.

Well, now you know what people were really saying in the 1980's. Maybe if you'd been a scientist in the 1980's instead of a 4th grader your impression of the science would be...oh...accurate?

I conclude that global warming theorists have absolutely no credibility and that their future predictions should be likewise ignored.

And now we know you based it on what you thought. Rather than what the experts were actually saying. Hmmm.

Maybe you'd like to read the book?

Here's the link:
Greenhouse Effect and Sea Level Rise: A Challenge for this Generation (4.9 MB PDF), was edited by Michael C. Barth and James G. Titus, and published by Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc, 1984. Although the book was originally published by a private company, it was written by EPA employees and EPA contractors.

Cheers.

 

[thaumaturgy]

TeddyKGB, the source is myself. I saw what I saw and heard what I heard. You can do your own research if it suits you. I was paying attention in school.

Apparently you weren't paying attention to the EPA in the 1980's. What were you paying attention to?

 

[LightHorseman]

You know, I was in primary school in the 1980s, and I don't remember much mention of greenhouse stuff either... far more about ozone depletion, and even that was after 1988 when the Antractic hole was found.

I remember nuclear war and AIDS were the big freak out things when I was at school, but then, it WAS a while ago

 

[Morcova]

Have you gotten around to providing sources for these rather outlandish claims? I was in grade school in the 80s and don't remember this at all.

While you're at it, get familiar with the fallacies of poisoning the well and hasty generalization.

I remember in the second grade in the early 80's being told by my teacher that in not too many years the amazon rain forest was going to be gone and then man wouldn't have any oxygen to breath.

In her defense, she was kind of a ditz.

 

[LightHorseman]

I remember hearing that about the Amazon too, it only seems to be a fairly recent discovery, or at least, generally promulgated, that the majority of the Earth's C02/02 exchange occurs in the oceans.

Of course, trees do tie up a fair bit of carbon as well, and they help with other things, like erosion and biodiversity.

 

[Baggins]

Psudopod hit the nail on the head:

but is the US economy more important that the lives of people on third world coastlines, for example?

How many millions of dead an displaced is it worth to not change your lifestyle?

 

[TeddyKGB]

TeddyKGB, the source is myself. I saw what I saw and heard what I heard. You can do your own research if it suits you. I was paying attention in school.

I'm not sure what to do here. You're making claims about scientists and science - claims that are seemingly supportable - from which you somehow deduce the untrustworthiness of everything any environmental scientist (those with whom you disagree, anyway) has ever said on the matter.

And we are apparently simply to take your word about what you're certain you heard in fifth grade? That's asking a lot of your opponents, even given substantial charity, don't you think?

 

[metherion]

Oh, yes, by all means take one prediction that you misinterpret, and use it as a basis to ignore everything about a field.

After all, if it isn't 100% accurate on everything right off the bat, it isn't worth using, is it?

Look, the fact of the matter is, there is more than enough land based ice on earth to make the oceans rise several feet if it all disappears. I don't think ANYONE can deny that.

And (whether it is accepted or not), we have evidence of just how far the glaciers can extend from where they are today. The thing is, in all of recorded human history, we've never seen how much the water levels can rise depending on how much melts. Nor do we know everything on the subject. But it's not that hard to see that ice has been melting, water levels have risen, and overall temperature has been going up since the industrial revolution, as have measurable CO2 levels. And no matter how much wishful thinking you have, being willing to bet the lives of potentially millions of human beings on merely NOT WANTING TO ACKNOWLEDGE the possibility of a problem is the height of arrogance, stupidity, and not a small step up the slope of evil. Certainly not a Christ-like thing to do.

Metherion

 

[True_Blue]

Oh, yes, by all means take one prediction that you misinterpret, and use it as a basis to ignore everything about a field.

After all, if it isn't 100% accurate on everything right off the bat, it isn't worth using, is it?

Look, the fact of the matter is, there is more than enough land based ice on earth to make the oceans rise several feet if it all disappears. I don't think ANYONE can deny that.

And (whether it is accepted or not), we have evidence of just how far the glaciers can extend from where they are today. The thing is, in all of recorded human history, we've never seen how much the water levels can rise depending on how much melts. Nor do we know everything on the subject. But it's not that hard to see that ice has been melting, water levels have risen, and overall temperature has been going up since the industrial revolution, as have measurable CO2 levels. And no matter how much wishful thinking you have, being willing to bet the lives of potentially millions of human beings on merely NOT WANTING TO ACKNOWLEDGE the possibility of a problem is the height of arrogance, stupidity, and not a small step up the slope of evil. Certainly not a Christ-like thing to do.

Metherion

Ok, Metherion, let's talk about what the Bible says on this topic:

- Genesis 9:1: "Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.' "

Environmentalists are using global warming as a vehicle to roll back industrialization, reduce population, and generally reduce the footprint of mankind on the earth. In my view, the responsibility for any purported overpopulation is with God, and God would not ask us to "overpopulate" the world. God has given us the complete freedom to have as many babies as we want and can properly support, without having to worry even a second about purported global ramifications.​

- Genesis 9:11-16: "I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth. . . .Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."

I conclude that we don't have to worry about the oceans flooding us, a la Kevin Costner's Waterworld, which was definitely the "high water mark" of global warming hysteria.​

- Proverbs 8:29: "I was there when he set the limits of the seas, so they would not spread beyond their boundaries."

I conclude from this verse that the oceans will not rise more than a negligible amount, if that.​

More problematic for people who accept global warming is the huge scale of human misery that would take place if mankind collectively decided to halt economic growth to abate CO2 emissions. The abatement effort would cost trillions of dollars, which is far better spent on food, health care, and other human needs. Trillions of dollars well-spent will save millions of lives, and trillions of dollars poorly spent will cost millions of lives. It's impossible for any reasonable person to justify that outlay of money, especially in the face of the shoddy science fully explicated earlier in this thread, and in the face of clear Bible verses to the contrary.

 

[thaumaturgy]

More problematic for people who accept global warming is the huge scale of human misery that would take place if mankind collectively decided to halt economic growth to abate CO2 emissions.

You keep talking about this as if someone has said this is going to be easy. It won't be. But it will only get harder and the costs more horrendous if the events transpire as they are now indicating they are.

But again, you keep talking about this as if you think there is no way for the DEVELOPED FIRST WORLD to enact some fundamental changes in our lives without devestating the 3rd world.

I don't get it? Considering that there are people in Bangladesh living in huts without electricity, how exactly will our living within responsible limits and environmentally sustainable means hurt them worse than they already have it?

Why does the future of the planet depend on our piggishly devouring 5 times more petroleum per person than any other group on the planet?

Honestly you keep bringing this up and I really don't understand it.

Here's a thought experiment for you: Take the most powerful economy known to humanity (possibly in the history of the human species) and couple it with the most advanced technology and the best technical schools available and give them a problem to solve.

The abatement effort would cost trillions of dollars,

And you don't think the very real possibility of hundreds of thousands if not a couple million people moving from the coasts of the U.S. into the midwest won't cost? That is what very well may happen if you avoid the costs of abatement now.

Funny thing is, all the models say this is likely. Especially if nothing is done. All you have is this vague "fear" that "cost will be bad". As if just showing the CO2 in the atmosphere how much it would cost will convince the CO2 to no longer absorb IR frequency radiation! (How rude is CO2 that it can't change it's nature for the benefit of the sad poor people of India? How nasty of CO2! How intransigent!)

Answer me this: if twenty doctors told you tomorrow your little child might have a virulent form of cancer that could be cured with really really expensive treatment, but it had to be started VERY SOON, and one said he didn't think this was necessarily the diagnosis he agreed with. Would you wait until the child was growing visible supparating tumors on his face before you acted to get the treatment started?

Remember, the doctor said "might".

I suspect I know what your answer would be. And it makes me wonder why you discuss this issue in the way you do.

which is far better spent on food, health care

But we aren't really spending it on healthcare here in the U.S. Many of the same political groups who battle against environmental responsibility split their efforts to battle single payer universal healthcare!

Face it, for most fiscal conservatives in the U.S. it isn't about "personal responsibility", it's about "My Money!" They don't want to pay for anyone else and don't give a hang about anyone else's welfare so long as the almighty "ME" is taken care of.

, and other human needs. Trillions of dollars well-spent will save millions of lives, and trillions of dollars poorly spent will cost millions of lives.

Again, I restate the question about the doctors and your child.

It's impossible for any reasonable person to justify that outlay of money

Unless, of course "all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter " agree that global warming and likely anthropogenic global warming is a real threat.

Then of course no reasonable person would fight against initial moves to decrease our carbon footprint and live within more rational means.

, especially in the face of the shoddy science

Shoddy science. Good one. Try telling that to "all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter "

fully explicated earlier in this thread, and in the face of clear Bible verses to the contrary.

"Fully explicated"? Really? Because you see the CO2-Temp curve correlation reversed you feel free to blow off the very real, fundamentally understood, concept of CO2 as a known greenhouse gas, and the numerous models promulgated by countless experts in this field that finds CO2 a much stronger forcing effect than any of the contenders you and Gawron have brought up?

Really? "Fully explicated"?

 

[Bombila]

Keep on imagining there is no Global Climate change happening. Meanwhile, Arctic ice sheets are beginning to disintegrate, to the extent we are looking at fighting for our sovereignty in our Northern territories.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7417123.stm?TB_iframe=true&height=650&width=850

Older (April 08) CBC story
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/04/16/arctic-ice.html

 

[metherion]

Well, Trueblue, even assuming the Bible WERE a literal science and history book (which is isn't), let's take a closer look at your verses.

Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.' "

Because, of course, 6 billion and growing isn't filling the earth at all. None.

As for rolling back industrialization? WRONG WRONG WRONG. Try rolling back pollution. Ever hear of green chemistry? Green engineering? Green power? Green ANYTHING? No, environmentalists don't want the population rolled back and industrialization stopped, we want it sustainable. If you can triple the population and find a way to sustain it without destroying everything, be my guest.

God has not given us free reign to do anything we want without worrying about global ramifications any more than He's given us free reign to do anything we want and still be following His Word, and to read "Feel free to abuse, rape, and plunder all the resources I've given to you without any worry of repercussions, signed, God" from that is rather delusional. And, a large amount of the world's population is not living at the level us first world countries enjoy, and are in fact pretty terribly off. So we're not 'properly supporting them', and your entire point is moot anyways.

"I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth. . . .Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth."

And yet, not all land on earth would be submerged. There would be no flood of Noachian proportions. Not everything would die. Humanity might be able to pull through, and many of the deep sea animals we know of would probably survive. As to how good that life would be, well, that's what we're concerned about. Noticeable amounts would be flooded, and significant changes, but no mythological wiping of everything from existence.

And from Proverbs, well, your conclusion is ill drawn. It says God has set boundaries for the seas, but nowhere does is state WHAT those boundaries are, and seeing as how that entire chapter talks about being present at the beginning, and Noah's Flood was after the beginning, those limits are clearly above all existing land, or they would have exceeded God's boundaries during the Flood.

Metherion

 

[Gawron]

I really don't have time for this over the holiday weekend, I am too busy driving around with the family, cooking out, you know, expanding my carbon footprint while generally enjoying time with the wife and kids. I will be back later to discuss how all of the polar bears are going to drown when the world catches on fire later.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I really don't have time for this over the holiday weekend, I am too busy driving around with the family, cooking out, you know, expanding my carbon footprint while generally enjoying time with the wife and kids. I will be back later to discuss how all of the polar bears are going to drown when the world catches on fire later.

Enjoy your weekend.

 

[True_Blue]

Well, Trueblue, even assuming the Bible WERE a literal science and history book (which is isn't), let's take a closer look at your verses.

Because, of course, 6 billion and growing isn't filling the earth at all. None.

As for rolling back industrialization? WRONG WRONG WRONG. Try rolling back pollution. Ever hear of green chemistry? Green engineering? Green power? Green ANYTHING? No, environmentalists don't want the population rolled back and industrialization stopped, we want it sustainable. If you can triple the population and find a way to sustain it without destroying everything, be my guess.

Mentherion, the Bible's verses speak to an underlying philosophy, which is only valuable if you adopt it. Rationalizing verses away doesn't work. I have a company using genetic engineering to convert waste CO2 into energy--the ultimate green recycling company, so I'm intimately familiar with what you're talking about. But people who have your philosophy for the most part don't put their energies into creating bioenergy companies. Instead, they pour their efforts into sabotaging the productive efforts of others. One of my partners remarked to me recently that he expected the environmentalists to embrace genetically modified plants to resist insects and reduce the need for pesticides, but in fact the environmentalists attacked his genetic engineering technology viciously. By the same taken, I fully expect the environmentalists to oppose my company at every turn because it will allow existing industrial infrastructure to continue operations while converting CO2 into an energy-efficient manner. We produce a clean environment without requiring deindustrialization, so if my company succeeds, we will be a huge threat to environmentalists. Environmentalism is a twisted religion, not a cogent, rational philosophy.

People have been wringing their hands about overpopulation for 200 years, and have been wrong every time. Read the May 17 Economist for an excellent article on Thomas Malthus.

To address an earlier point, the world energy markets are unified. If the US cuts back on energy production, the price of energy rises worldwide, fueling increases in the prices of food and causing poor people to have to cut back on food consumption. This is basic macroeconomics, and unfortunately, I can't give a detailed economics lesson on this forum.

The Bible is the source of wisdom. Sadly, environmentalism is completely bereft of wisdom, and it values nature over starving children. That makes environmentalism inherently evil.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I have a company using genetic engineering to convert waste CO2 into energy--the ultimate green recycling company

Very interesting concept. Seems thermodynamically disfavorable but that's because I'm always thinking of oxidation as an energy source and since CO2 is about as oxidized as C gets, it doesn't seem to be a workable item.

Maybe you are using for some photosynthetic?

Never mind. This is probably your trade-secret or proprietary topic. Just an interesting side line.

Instead, they pour their efforts into sabotaging the productive efforts of others. One of my partners remarked to me recently that he expected the environmentalists to embrace genetically modified plants to resist insects and reduce the need for pesticides, but in fact the environmentalists attacked his genetic engineering technology viciously.

I personally am for genetic engineering of plants. I recognize that there are problems inherent that must be closely examined, but I also see the value of the genetic revolution. I'm also an enviro-weenie as well. I want to see the environment taken care of.

By the same taken, I fully expect the environmentalists to oppose my company at every turn because it will allow existing industrial infrastructure to continue operations while converting CO2 into an energy-efficient manner.

Considering we don't really know much about your concept, but if it is merely a photosynthetic thing, then I'd have to see the relative rates of CO2 reabsorption and the scale you are dealing with.

Unfortunately there's simply too much CO2 we are currently pumping into the atmosphere. I think there's still a value in reducing our carbon footprint, in addition to new technologies of carbon sequestration.

We produce a clean environment without requiring deindustrialization,

I don't think there are many on here who would support "de-industrialization", in that we all enjoy the wonders of a modern society. The key being that companies like yours and others can develop new cleaner industries to displace dirtier older concepts.

I studied coal and petroleum in grad school. And even I realize that coal and petroleum are harsh versions of energy.

so if my company succeeds, we will be a huge threat to environmentalists.

That is unlikely. Environmnetalism is, on its largest scale, the appreciation that we must move forward with a realization that we are capable of doing great damage without any help from anything else. That's not "Environmentalism" so much as PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Environmentalism is a twisted religion, not a cogent, rational philosophy.

That is a gross misrepresentation of the concept. You'll find there are many environmentally cognizant people like myself who support industry and have an understanding and even an appreciation of petroleum and coal.

Not everyone who loves to see the environment is an E.L.F. nut.

People have been wringing their hands about overpopulation for 200 years, and have been wrong every time.

So you don't think the world population is growing exponentially? Do you see how this will become a problem with respect to non-renewable resources like oil and coal?

Right now we have a huge amount of coal, but petroleum is possibly very close to the global peak.

Overpopulation will indeed cause a problem. Unless we learn to parse our resources more rationally (that includes us).

To address an earlier point, the world energy markets are unified. If the US cuts back on energy production, the price of energy rises worldwide, fueling increases in the prices of food and causing poor people to have to cut back on food consumption.

If the U.S. uses less than 5 times the amount of petroleum on a per-person basis of any other group on the planet it will cause more problems for the rest of the world than it currently is?

This smacks of justification. It sounds too much like someone who wants to not feel guilt for being the country that sucks its UNFAIR share of resources.

Remember, the Chinese have stated in their most recent 5-year plan that they want to be something more than just the "world's workshop". They want to take a leading role. In order to do that they will compete with us head-to-head to get petroleum. They will, of course, win if they really want it badly enough. They could, if they so desired, crash our economy in about an hour right now just based on their US currency holdings. It is not in their best interest to do so, but they could. Who holds the real power there?

When we compete against China (and India) for petroleum we better have started to learn how to live with a SMALLER HUNGER FOR PETROLEUM than we currently live on.

Because when that happens we will be in for an economy-crushing experience and massive gasoline rationing.

This is basic macroeconomics, and unfortunately, I can't give a detailed economics lesson on this forum.

I really dislike it when people say stuff like that. I do my best to give a detailed science lesson when I post. Why can't you give a detailed lesson on here?

The Bible is the source of wisdom. Sadly, environmentalism is completely bereft of wisdom

So it isn't wisdom to:

1. take care of your own home?
2. live within your means for the long-term?
3. care about future generations enough to forego a bit of our immediate gratification so that they may enjoy the benefits we have had?

, and it values nature over starving children. That makes environmentalism inherently evil.

That is a huge strawman fallacy. I hope you actually realize that. I hope you don't actually think environmnetalists are somehow anti-poor kids. In order to hold that opinion you must have been fed a line of stupidity and lies by some vested interest.

Starving Children are not helped by America's consumption of petroleum at 5X the amount per person of any other group on the planet.

Remember in the 1950's when the U.S. helped overthrow the prime minister of Iran (Mossadegh) in support of British petroleum interests. Do you think the people who suffered under the Shah and who later suffered under the current theocracy are "happy" with our thirst for petroleum? Interestingly enough Mossadegh had the cojones to suggest keeping foreign control of Iran's assets from proceding.

You see, we don't really care about anyone here in the U.S. We really care about cheap oil. And if the Brits could help us maintain a cheap oil supply then other people be damned.

Unfortunately when I see people fiercely defend a profligate way of life, be it in preference to money or power or petroleum, I see it not as some grandfatherly "Keep sucking petroleum for the children" attitude but a desperate attempt to justify the status quo.

Again, if this is "wisdom", the we are the most evil species to ever populate the planet, and our wisdom is trash.