Global warming and the end

[Ludicrus]

Being a real scientist, I clearly am not anti science. I am anti pseudo-science.

Science is not decided by consensus. It is based on evidence. And when that "evidence" has been willfully manipulated, with false information being circulated as "fact," we real scientiscts get upset. We also get upset when those who are presenting that bogus "information" simply refuse to look at information that disproves their theories.

But our greatest upset comes when they not only refuse to consider other data, but actively attempt to suppress that disproving information. This results on an host of "useful idiots" (that is their term, not ours) that become willing to act as evangelists of their false gospel.

Thank you for stating it so succinctly. It is a false gospel.

These people are hell bent on saving the earth when God says He will save those that come to Him through His Son Jesus Christ AND Destroy the Earth. With fire.

I'd hate to be one who professes Jesus Christ and devote myself to something that is against God and against His Word and then have to answer to it when I die.

Acts 5:39 AMP
39 But if it is of God, you will not be able to stop or overthrow or destroy them; you might even be found fighting against God!

Satan has been trying since the beginning of his downfall to overthrow and destroy everything that is of God. And now, he promises to reverse God's ordained destruction of the earth.

Zephaniah 1:1-18 AMP
1 THE WORD of the Lord which came to Zephaniah son of Cushi, the son of Gedaliah, the son of Amariah, the son of Hezekiah, in the days of Josiah king of Judah and son of Amon.
2 By taking away I will make an end and I will utterly consume and sweep away all things from the face of the earth, says the Lord.
3 I will consume and sweep away man and beast; I will consume and sweep away the birds of the air and the fish of the sea. I will overthrow the stumbling blocks (the idols) with the wicked [worshipers], and I will cut off mankind from the face of the earth, says the Lord.
4 I will also stretch out My hand over Judah and over all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and I will cut off the remnant of Baal from this place and the name of the idol priests with the [false] priests,
5 And those who worship the starry host of the heavens upon their housetops and those who [pretend to] worship the Lord and swear by and to Him and yet swear by and to [the heathen god Molech or] Malcam [their idol king],
6 And those who have drawn back from following the Lord and those who have not sought the Lord nor inquired for, inquired of, and required the Lord [as their first necessity].
7 [Hush!] Be silent before the Lord God, for the day [of the vengeance] of the Lord is near; for the Lord has prepared a sacrifice, and He has set apart [for His use] those who have accepted His invitation. [Hab. 2:20.]
8 And on the day of the Lord's sacrifice, I will punish the officials and the king's sons and all who are clothed in [lavish] foreign apparel [instead of the Jewish dress, with its reminders to obey God's commandments]. [Num. 15:38, 39.]
9 In the same day also will I punish all those who leap swiftly on or over the threshold [upon entering houses to steal], who fill their master's house with violence and deceit and fraud.
10 And in that day, says the Lord, there shall be heard the voice of crying from the Fish Gate [in the wall of Jerusalem] and a wailing from the Second Quarter or Lower City and a great crashing and sound of destruction from the hills.
11 Wail, you inhabitants of the Mortar [those located in the hollow part of the city]! For all the merchant people, like the people of Canaan, will be silent [entirely destroyed]; all those who weighed out silver and were loaded with it will be cut off.
12 And at that time I will search Jerusalem with lamps and punish the men who [like old wine] are thickening and settling on their lees, who say in their hearts, The Lord will not do good, nor will He do evil.
13 And their wealth shall become plunder and their houses a desolation. Though they build houses, they shall not inhabit them; though they plant vineyards, they shall not drink the wine from them. [Deut. 28:30, 39; Amos 5:11, 12.]
14 The great day of the Lord is near--near and hastening fast. Hark! the voice of the day of the Lord! The mighty man [unable to fight or to flee] will cry then bitterly.
15 That day is a day of wrath, a day of distress and anguish, a day of ruin and devastation, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness, [Jer. 30:7; Joel 2:11; Amos 5:18.]
16 A day of the blast of trumpet and battle cry against the fortified cities and against the high towers and battlements.
17 And I will bring distress upon men, so that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the Lord; their blood shall be poured out like dust and their flesh like dung.
18 Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in the day of the Lord's indignation and wrath. But the whole earth shall be consumed in the fire of His jealous wrath, for a full, yes, a sudden, end will He make of all the inhabitants of the earth. [Luke 21:35, 36; II Pet. 3:10-13.]


The theme of satan's rebellion is to convince people that they can save themselves and the earth, OR at the very least, there is SOME ONE or SOME GROUP that will be able to accomplish this thing.

That's the underlying message of the movies Independence Day and Armageddon. Wonderful movies, but the theme is still there.

 

[Biblewriter]

An Inconvenient Truth had a few oversimplifications, one of which being the Milankovitch cycles interactions with CO2. But generally speaking it raised climate awareness, and that's a good thing.

PS: Which English court banned An Inconvenient Truth in schools? When? You really believe these Denialist websites of yours, don't you? You're really sucked in by them. How sad. You seem intelligent in some areas, but are obviously so keen to believe anything against climate science that you seem to have lost the ability to objectively test the Denialosphere's rumour mill for yourself. Try to check wikipedia first? Then you won't embarrass yourself getting caught out pushing childish claims about Arctic sea ice, or British bans on movies, that are in reality completely untrue.


Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your denialism is becoming amusing. After claiming that what I said was not true, your posted an article that said EXACTLY what I said.

"The court also identified nine of what the plaintiff called 'errors' in the film which were departures from the scientific mainstream, and ruled that the guidance notes must address these items specifically."

 

[eclipsenow]

The last plagues are poured out over a period of many years. Global warming will get much worse, due to global-warming deniers.

They sure are spread out over a period of many years: 2013 and counting! (I'm amil, and everything in Revelation 1 tells me that it is a prophetic declaration of the gospel to our Christian era between the Lord's resurrection and His return. I'm yet to be convinced that there is a single prediction of an actual single event in the book, but it is rather filled with generic description of the character of the time we live in. Oh, and the Lord's return? It's described 3 times in a variety of ways. It's not predicted. We don't have a clue when the Lord is going to return).

Given that I'm an Amil, my reaction to the reality of global warming is one of concern for my neighbour. I want to be bored by it, for it to go away and for global carbon legislation to sound like yesterday's asbestos laws or lead pollution laws. I want it to be over, and for the first world to have shown some basic compassion and justice for the poor. Because it is the global south, the global poor, that this thing is going to hit the hardest.

 

[eclipsenow]

Your denialism is becoming amusing. After claiming that what I said was not true, your posted an article that said EXACTLY what I said.

"The court also identified nine of what the plaintiff called 'errors' in the film which were departures from the scientific mainstream, and ruled that the guidance notes must address these items specifically."

Hi Biblewriter, I genuinely apologise. I was busy, and speed read what you wrote. I thought you said "the court issued an order making it illegal for a school to show Al Gore's famous movie." That is, a flat out government ban on showing the movie in schools! I replied to show that it was indeed being shown. But what you in fact said was "In England, the falsehood was so conclusively proved in court that the court issued an order making it illegal for a school to show Al Gore's famous movie about global warming without pointing out the disinformation it contains." That is, it's being shown but with caveats.

I also agree that there were a few over-simplifications in Al Gore's movie. It's an easy whipping dog, and many climate scientists I've read would not agree with the way he oversimplified complex matters. I'm thinking particularly of the ice-age CO2 relationship which I have already written about here.

And all of this proves what? It's attacking Al Gore, not the peer-reviewed climate science Al Gore misprepresented. You just corrected me for 'rebuking' you when in fact I was attacking a strawman of my own misunderstanding. You're now trying to attack climate science by attacking Al Gore's misunderstandings or misrepresentations or oversimplifications. It's irrelevant, cheap, and boring.

 

[eclipsenow]

Thank you for stating it so succinctly. It is a false gospel.

These people are hell bent on saving the earth when God says He will save those that come to Him through His Son Jesus Christ AND Destroy the Earth. With fire.

I'd hate to be one who professes Jesus Christ and devote myself to something that is against God and against His Word and then have to answer to it when I die.

1. false dichotomy. It's like saying "I'm a Christian so I don't have to love my neighbour or care about polluting their yard or trashing their crops and making them starve."
2. Do you ignore standard Fire Exits or other flammable hazards because they also contain the word 'fire' or references to heat, and are obviously false gospels as well? Do you just whack your hand on a stove to check if it's on? Yes, global warming is about the world's climate warming. It is NOT even referring to the inescapable, universal, final judgement of our God against sin, let alone trying to replace it. You're really warping and stretching the biblical metaphors for judgement day and in danger of actually warping the scriptures yourself in a vain attempt to attack global warming.
3. Many in climate science are Christians.

 

[Biblewriter]

1
3. Many in climate science are Christians.

And many in climate science signed the declaration denouncing man made global warming.

 

[eclipsenow]

And many in climate science signed the declaration denouncing man made global warming.

Yeah, like 3%. Now could you please tell us all how much multi-year thick Arctic ice there is? Try being honest about the data on that one. The truth will set you free (of wild conspiracy theories at least).

 

[interpreter]

They sure are spread out over a period of many years: 2013 and counting! (I'm amil, and everything in Revelation 1 tells me that it is a prophetic declaration of the gospel to our Christian era between the Lord's resurrection and His return. I'm yet to be convinced that there is a single prediction of an actual single event in the book, but it is rather filled with generic description of the character of the time we live in. Oh, and the Lord's return? It's described 3 times in a variety of ways. It's not predicted. We don't have a clue when the Lord is going to return).

Given that I'm an Amil, my reaction to the reality of global warming is one of concern for my neighbour. I want to be bored by it, for it to go away and for global carbon legislation to sound like yesterday's asbestos laws or lead pollution laws. I want it to be over, and for the first world to have shown some basic compassion and justice for the poor. Because it is the global south, the global poor, that this thing is going to hit the hardest.

The last plagues follow the great tribulation of WW II. First there was skin cancer, then red tides (and sometimes colorless dead zones), and now global warming.

 

[eclipsenow]

The last plagues follow the great tribulation of WW II. First there was skin cancer, then red tides (and sometimes colorless dead zones), and now global warming.

That's right: it's all there in Chapter 1. "Then he with the square moustache shall rize, with the power of the Blitzkrieg and Swatstika, and bring the red horse of war across Europe." It's all right there in chapter 1!

Sorry mate, but it's going to take a lot of work to convince me that Revelation is anything other than the gospel retold in amazing biblical imagery and metaphor, and this is not really the thread for that.

 

[eclipsenow]

Meanwhile, in other news...

James Hansen, the country’s most prescient climatologist, is out with another must-read paper, “Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide.” The paper, co-authored by a number of Hansen’s former colleagues at NASA, is an antidote to the rosy scenarios the mainstream media have recently been pushing.
The key findings are

• The Earth’s actual sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels from preindustrial levels (to 550 ppm) — including slow feedbacks — is likely to be larger than 3–4°C (5.4-7.2°F).
• Given that we are headed towards a tripling (820 ppm) or quadrupling (1100 ppm) of atmospheric CO2 levels, inaction is untenable.
• “Burning all fossil fuels” would warm land areas on average about 20°C (36°F) and warm the poles a stunning 30°C (54°F). This “would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans, thus calling into question strategies that emphasize adaptation to climate change.”

Burning all or even most fossil fuels would be a true scorched Earth policy.
Given that James Hansen has been right about global warming for more than 3 decades, his climate warnings need to be taken seriously.
The article makes two crucial point that so many media reports on climate sensitivity ignore. First, we are headed well past a doubling of CO2 levels. Second, “slow feedbacks, especially change of ice sheet size and atmospheric CO2, amplify the total Earth system sensitivity by an amount that depends on the time scale considered.” We know from recent research that two CO2 feedbacks alone — thawing permafrost and ocean acidification — have been projected to increase total global warming by 2100 as much as 2°F!
If we stay anywhere near our current emissions path, we face catastrophic levels of warming. Indeed, if we ultimately burn all of fossil fuels, Hansen et al find almost unimaginable consequences:

Our calculated global warming in this case is 16°C, with warming at the poles approximately 30°C. Calculated warming over land areas averages approximately 20°C. Such temperatures would eliminate grain production in almost all agricultural regions in the world. Increased stratospheric water vapour would diminish the stratospheric ozone layer.
More ominously, global warming of that magnitude would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans. The human body generates about 100 W of metabolic heat that must be carried away to maintain a core body temperature near 37°C, which implies that sustained wet bulb temperatures above 35°C can result in lethal hyperthermia. Today, the summer temperature varies widely over the Earth’s surface, but wet bulb temperature is more narrowly confined by the effect of humidity, with the most common value of approximately 26–27°C and the highest approximately of 31°C. A warming of 10–12°C would put most of today’s world population in regions with wet a bulb temperature above 35°C…. Note also that increased heat stress due to warming of the past few decades is already enough to affect health and workplace productivity at low latitudes, where the impact falls most heavily on low- and middle-income countries
​

Climate Progress has previously written on the literature projecting a collapse in labor productivity from business as usual global warming. But the scorched Earth would have a vastly smaller carrying capacity than our current one, and avoiding mass starvation would become the primary task of humanity.
Hansen et al. note that this may not even require burning all of fossil fuels. It could happen on our current emissions path — if the slower (decadal) feedbacks are as strong as some paleoclimate analysis suggests. Back in 2011 we reported on a paleoclimate paper in Science that found we are headed towards CO2 levels in 2100 last seen when the Earth was 29°F (16°C) hotter.
In that sense, Hansen et al. is a conservative analysis. Their whole paper is worth reading. The authors conclude:

Most of the remaining fossil fuel carbon is in coal and unconventional oil and gas. Thus, it seems, humanity stands at a fork in the road. As conventional oil and gas are depleted, will we move to carbon-free energy and efficiency—or to unconventional fossil fuels and coal? If fossil fuels were made to pay their costs to society, costs of pollution and climate change, carbon-free alternatives might supplant fossil fuels over a period of decades. However, if governments force the public to bear the external costs and even subsidize fossil fuels, carbon emissions are likely to continue to grow, with deleterious consequences for young people and future generations.
It seems implausible that humanity will not alter its energy course as consequences of burning all fossil fuels become clearer. Yet strong evidence about the dangers of human-made climate change have so far had little effect. Whether governments continue to be so foolhardy as to allow or encourage development of all fossil fuels may determine the fate of humanity.
​

Hansen Study: Climate Sensitivity Is High, Burning All Fossil Fuels Would Make Most Of Planet 'Uninhabitable' | ThinkProgress

 

[Biblewriter]

Yeah, like 3%. Now could you please tell us all how much multi-year thick Arctic ice there is? Try being honest about the data on that one. The truth will set you free (of wild conspiracy theories at least).

Only around 3% of them care enough to risk their jobs by openly rejecting the theory.

But thank you for admitting the presence of this 3%. For in the past you have incorrectly argued that there are no real scientists in the field that reject your beloved theory. (Remember you completely dismissed the literally thousands of certified scientists working in related field that have signed the anti man-made global warming statement.)

 

[eclipsenow]

Only around 3% of them care enough to risk their jobs by openly rejecting the theory.

But thank you for admitting the presence of this 3%. For in the past you have incorrectly argued that there are no real scientists in the field that reject your beloved theory. (Remember you completely dismissed the literally thousands of certified scientists working in related field that have signed the anti man-made global warming statement.)

Thanks for your honest answer! So on topic!

Here. I'll help you. See how the white, multi-year ice has shrunk over time? Newsflash: the Arctic ice is melting. Why? Is there some secret volcano under all that ice? Aliens are doing it? Or the known, documented, peer-reviewed FACT that CO2 traps heat?

PS: We discussed your so called 'petition' before, and you denied what it really was and were caught out completely ignorant of origins of the unverifiable FARCE known as the Oregon petition. But I can't really expect more from someone who quotes Terra Australis as some early map of Antarctica.

Oregon Petition:

A manuscript accompanying the petition was presented in a near identical style and format to contributions that appear in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific journal,[29] but upon careful examination was distinct from a publication by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Raymond Pierrehumbert, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Chicago, said the presentation was "designed to be deceptive by giving people the impression that the article … is a reprint and has passed peer review." Pierrehumbert also said the publication was full of "half-truths".[30] F. Sherwood Rowland, who was at the time foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences, said that the Academy received numerous inquiries from researchers who "are wondering if someone is trying to hoodwink them."[30]
Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[eclipsenow]

This youtube computer animation shows it the best. Scoffers seem confused by the annual cycle, but by putting all those curves next to each other we can see the downward death spiral of the Arctic ice.

Arctic Sea Ice Collapse 1979-2013/07 - YouTube

 

[eclipsenow]

Once again, let's check out a report from a Christian Meteorologist. For ease of reading, I'll sign off hear and quote him below without the quote code that sometimes messes up readability.

Regards

**************
​

Ice, ice baby - Arctic sea ice and climate change




One of the clear signs that someone has an agenda is when they cherry pick the data. It’s a common mistake to focus too much on the short term at the expense of the longer view. A recent example of this is the cover of Arctic Sea ice. Skeptics are claiming that sea ice has undergone a recent recovery, and therefore, along with the apparent stalling of global warming as measured by atmospheric temperatures, climate change is a myth. This is simply not true.


Arctic sea ice loss has been steadily occurring for some time. Satellite observations show it has been in decline since 1979 when observations first began. Observations from the Danish Meteorological Institute and Norwegian Polar Institute and ocean vessels have shown sea-ice cover is much lower than it has been since 1870. Studies of older climate from tree rings, ice cores and lake sediments can take us back even further, showing sea-ice is at its lowest for over 1400 years.

​

Perhaps the best way to think about sea ice loss is to compare blocks of cheddar cheese to cheese slices. If you want to cut a slice off a slice of cheddar, you cut it length ways, with each slice of equal thickness. With each slice you cut off, the surface area of cheese decreases. Compare that to cheese slices. Each time you remove a slice, the surface area remains the same but the thickness of the cheese decreases.


The melting of sea ice is like the removal of cheese slices, except sea ice varies in thickness. The thickness of ice reflects its age, with the thinnest ice being last season’s freezing and the thickest being from multiple years of freezing. Each summer, sea ice thins due to warming temperatures. Consider a distribution of sea ice where 25% is less than one metre. If during a summer season, there is a total of one metre of thinning, then there will be a 25% reduction in total sea ice. If that distribution changes over time such that 50% has a thickness of one metre, then the same summer time melting reduces the area but 50% instead of 25%.


This is what has been observed over time, sea ice has thinned, or another way of describing it is that total ice volume has decreased, due to warming air and ocean temperatures. Over shorter timescales, individual weather events can dramatically affect the total surface area of ice as thin ice can rapidly grow. For example, in 2012, a low pressure system spent nearly two weeks churning up ice already thin from a warm start to the season resulted in the lowest sea ice cover on record, though scientists think the ice would have reached a record low anyway. This year’s so-called recovery simply means that low pressure systems have brought snow fall and not damaged the ice, resulting in the 6th lowest sea ice cover on record.

​

Image from Skeptical Science shows so called recovery is simply a growth in area due to seasonal differences.

​

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012[/FONT]


The moral of this story is that various key indicators of climate change do vary naturally on short time scales, be it year to year or over a few decades. This does nothing to change the longer term trends due to the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and other drivers of climate change.


Further reading
Arctic sea ice "recovers" to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia is at a popular level and contains references
Cyclone did not cause 2012 record low for Arctic sea ice | UW Today discusses the 2012 record low and the role the Great Arctic Cyclone played
The future of ice sheets and sea ice: Between reversible retreat and unstoppable loss discusses the idea of tipping points and illustrates how sea ice varies from year to year. Moderately technical.


Ethos Environment: Ice, ice baby - Arctic sea ice and climate change

 

[eclipsenow]

And in breaking news:

Here is the relevant statement from the fourth IPCC report in 2007:

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [90 percent confidence] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations[/FONT]
​

Now here is the statement from the fifth IPCC report:

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]"It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Global warming: why is IPCC report so certain about the influence of humans? | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | theguardian.com[/FONT]
​

 

[Biblewriter]

You just blew your whole case!!!!

Something that is 90% to 95% certain is simply not proven fact.

End of story.

CASE CLOSED.

 

[eclipsenow]

You just blew your whole case!!!!

Something that is 90% to 95% certain is simply not proven fact.

End of story.

CASE CLOSED.

You just proved you don't understand science, and are willing (on silly ideological grounds and suspect theological grounds) to gamble our entire civilisation on a 5% probability bet.

However, even you have admitted that CO2's heat trapping properties ARE a proven fact.

You're gambling the productivity and success of your children and grandchildren's future on a 5% bet. Good one!

 

[Biblewriter]

You just proved you don't understand science, and are willing (on silly ideological grounds and suspect theological grounds) to gamble our entire civilisation on a 5% probability bet.

However, even you have admitted that CO2's heat trapping properties ARE a proven fact.

You're gambling the productivity and success of your children and grandchildren's future on a 5% bet. Good one!

I have admitted that CO2 traps heat, and have pointed out that its effects have been radically exaggerated.

You have insisted that these things have been conclusively proved, while your "experts" now admit they have not.

And if you think a prediction of which the "scientists" are 95% certain is "science," it is you who does not understand science. But you have already proved that fact beyond dispute.

I will again remind you that I am a certified and licensed expert (as opposed to an alleged expert) in the application of the laws of the physical sciences. MY license number is PE 37635 (Ohio.)

 

[eclipsenow]

I have admitted that CO2 traps heat, and have pointed out that its effects have been radically exaggerated.

You have insisted that these things have been conclusively proved, while your "experts" now admit they have not.

And if you think a prediction of which the "scientists" are 95% certain is "science," it is you who does not understand science. But you have already proved that fact beyond dispute.

I will again remind you that I am a certified and licensed expert (as opposed to an alleged expert) in the physical sciences. MY license number is PE 37635 (Ohio.)

Sorry mate, but you're not a qualified climatologist and I'll remind you that you lost all credibility when you insisted, till blue in the face with the shouting you put into it, that Terra Australis = Antarctica. You're a bundle of contradictions that does not know if he is coming or going.

 

[Biblewriter]

Sorry mate, but you're not a qualified climatologist and I'll remind you that you lost all credibility when you insisted, till blue in the face with the shouting you put into it, that Terra Australis = Antarctica. You're a bundle of contradictions that does not know if he is coming or going.

My certified and licensed expertise is in the application of the basic sciences which are the basis of climatology. Something that, unfortunately, most "climatologists" seem to have demonstrated they do not well understand.

And I am sorry the logic is beyond you, but I stand by my guns on Terra Australis.