• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Global warming and the end

Discussion in 'Eschatology - Endtimes & Prophecy Forum' started by eclipsenow, Apr 12, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. eclipsenow

    eclipsenow God cares about his creation as well as us.

    +997
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    Codger, with your engineering and science background I'm shocked that you can so easily dismiss climate science. I'm really saddened by it actually.

    But anyway, fusion. Of course we should keep studying and funding this! But the scientific, peer-reviewed reality is that fusion is wishful thinking until we can establish a method of extracting more energy out than we put in, and doing so very, very cheaply. Until then fission actually can be done cheaply, with new Gen3.5 reactors going up on the production line. EG: How expensive is a car? A hand made, one of a kind Rolls, or a factory produced Hyundai?

    As for dangerous by products, the nuclear waste would go into a nuclear energy park (out in the desert somewhere) and never come out. Depleted uranium would be 'bred' up into grades of plutonium that can fission, but not be weaponisable. That is, the burn but don't go boom! Also, we keep breeding it up through the elements until the final waste product is so 'hot' that it burns itself back to safe levels in just 300 years. There's no storing of waste for 100,000 years any more!

    Nuclear waste = fuel that could run the world for the next 500 years!

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Biblewriter

    Biblewriter Senior Member Supporter

    +1,332
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Conservatives
    So ----- You are shocked that the two real scientists that you are discussing this with do not accept the pseudo-science you have swallowed hook, line, and sinker. Is that it?

    But what about today's news? Such stories are becoming common. Headline:

    "Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions."

    link:

    Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown | Reuters
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2013
  3. Fenwick

    Fenwick ☩ Broman Catholic ☩

    +8,518
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    US-Republican
    @Codger - So from what I gather this ITER plant is a massive multinational experiment to prove that fusion is a viable, sustainable and efficient power source. Do you think the chances are good that after 2038 when the experiment apparently "ends", there will be practical applications from their research? As in, hopefully the governments of the nations involved in the experiment will turn around and invest the necessary capital to decommission old coal and oil burning power plants and replace them with fusion plants?

    @eclipsenow - did you ever see the film Sahara with Matthew McConaughey? I've tried to research whether a waste disposal plant like the one that the antagonist in the film operates is actually a feasible design. Essentially it was a plant that utilized pure solar energy to operate an incinerator. I've done numerous web searches for "solar powered waste incineration" but I haven't come up with much. Is that largely a fictional idea or could it realistically be implemented?
     
  4. eclipsenow

    eclipsenow God cares about his creation as well as us.

    +997
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    This article is like Shakespeare: Much Ado about Nothing. The article makes silly, exaggerated claims about things that are in the fringes of the basic science. The basic science stands clear. Co2 DOES trap energy, the world IS warming, etc. Sometimes the patterns of a warming globe surprise us, and there are also fluctuations in the ENSO cycle. Big deal.

    Did you note how they don't reference the peer reviewed papers involved? They don't want people going to the sources and finding that the debate occurs within the overall paradigm of a warming globe. When this 'article' does mention names it's a catastrophe for Reuter's credibility: Bjorn Lomberg (vomit!), an economist (not qualified to comment), and a chemist (not qualified to comment).

    Now let's look at the reality.

    Of the top 3 climate monitoring units on the planet only Hadley says 1998 was the warmest, and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) has pointed to a cooling bias with the Hadley data.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

    Two of the three most powerful temperature databases on the planet confirm 1998 as the THIRD warmest year on record, even when 1998 had one of the most frighteningly powerful El Nino's we've ever seen. Check it out — NOAA, NASA, then Hadley's CRU.

    The NCDC at NOAA says:
    ///For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 1998 is the third warmest year-to-date on record, at 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average."
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/13

    NASA GISTEMP confirms the same thing and says:
    "Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.///
    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/

    And now Phil Jones at the CRU, but don't forget the ECMWF has had a go at this particular dataset.

    ///The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2010. According to the method of calculation used by CRU, the year 2010 was the equal third (see footnote) warmest on record (with 2003), exceeded by 1998 and 2005. The years 2003, 2005 and 2010 are only distinguishable in the third decimal place. The error estimate for individual years (two standard errors is about ±0.1°C, see Brohan et al., 2006) is at least ten times larger than the differences between these three years.

    The period 2001-2010 (0.44°C above 1961-90 mean) was 0.20°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade (0.24°C above 1961-90 mean). The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.55°C above the 1961-90 mean. After 1998, the next nine warmest years in the series are all in the decade 2001-2010. During this decade, only 2008 is not in the ten warmest years. Even though 2008 was the coldest year of the 21st century it was still the 12th warmest year of the whole record.///
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

    But rather than argue over hundredths of a degree, which is all that seems to separate the temperatures, have a look at the 15 year trend *all* 3 agencies report. Brilliant graphic here.
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/science/monitoring

    Even Denialist's are admitting it. At the 2009 Heartland Institute conference (of global warming sceptics), well known climate denialist Dr Patrick J Michaels warned against using the 1998 El Nino super-spike as some sort of 'proof' of a cooling trend. Take the advice of the words of a fellow Denialist.

    ///"Make an argument that you can get killed on and you will kill us all… If you loose credibility on this issue you lose this issue!"///
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4

    So while Denialists selectively zoom in on a few data points to try and skew the story any way they want, overall, the trend is clear.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M
    The last decade was the hottest on record, and anyone who says otherwise is denying the best data on the planet and pushing an anti-science agenda of their own.

    But as for scientists not accepting global warming: it's been well documented that political ideology trumps scientific evidence for practically any right-wing person (outside of the climate community itself that is). I'm just saddened that this ability to lie to oneself even seems to operate in the Christian world. It's no surprise with someone like you, a Creationist, who has already managed to turn a blind eye to any science you don't find convenient. But someone smart like Codger? That's sad.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2013
  5. eclipsenow

    eclipsenow God cares about his creation as well as us.

    +997
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    There are many great ideas for recycling rubbish, but this is my favourite. However, that may change in a few weeks as I'm going out to investigate something else that's turned up in Sydney.

    Recycle | Eclipse Now
     
  6. Biblewriter

    Biblewriter Senior Member Supporter

    +1,332
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Conservatives
    I have already posted, right here in this thread, the evidence that the databases you are relying upon were constructed by willfully distorting the facts by discontinuing temperature observations from the cooler areas.
     
  7. eclipsenow

    eclipsenow God cares about his creation as well as us.

    +997
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    Yeah, another winning response! ;) ;)

    Those ancient maps totally won me over! ;);)

    And you really responded with solid material to refute all the peer-reviewed work I submitted above!;);)

    No, really, you've totally got me!;);)

    Great rebuttal to each and every point above! :doh::doh:;);)

    Now run along, and disprove the basic physics. And, if you get a moment, you might want to actually engage the points I raised above without responding like a boring and predictable internet troll. Surprise us. Actually engage the material for once in your life, and prove you're not just following Fox news dogma!

    If you really want to disprove global warming, disprove the Radiative Forcing Equation below, which basically counts:-
    1. How Co2 traps heat (basic physics demonstrated in any physics lab on the entire PLANET!)
    2. How much Co2 there was before the Industrial Revolution.
    3. How much Co2 there is now.
    4. How much extra heat is trapped.

    Just find a paper that can disprove this following equation, and your work here is done.
    [​IMG]
     
  8. Biblewriter

    Biblewriter Senior Member Supporter

    +1,332
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Conservatives
    Just explain why the temperatures are remaining stable even as the Co2 levels are rising and your work is done.

    And don't bother with your "peer-reviewed" nonsense. Because the "peers" refuse to approve anything that challenges their theories, just as they do in evolution.
     
  9. Codger

    Codger Regular Member

    +119
    Protestant
    Married
    US-Republican
    All I know, not being a physicist, is that the fusion process has been in the physics labs of the world for 60 years now. I believe that they are confident enough to move out of the labs into a full scale operating plant. Any power plant is it's own best customer - as I first learned while taking a tour of Philadelphia Electric in 1966 - while I was studying industrial power. They will be using about 1/10th of the power they generate (50mw of 500mw) to keep the reactor in operation. As you know it takes extremely high temperatures to keep the reactor on stream. How do you contain plasma at 150,000,000 degrees C from consuming the container? A lot of engineering has been done since the 50's.

    When any unexpected problems are worked out, I'm sure that this new technology will supplant the obsolete fission and fossil fuel plants. Lets hope that there are no serious unexpected glitches in the design. We should have a good indication of the status of the reactor by 2019.

    Larry
     
  10. Interplanner

    Interplanner Newbie

    +97
    Non-Denom
    Single
    BW, what is your science degree?
     
  11. Biblewriter

    Biblewriter Senior Member Supporter

    +1,332
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Conservatives
    I have a BA in "science" and mathematics. "Science" is an unusual degree that encompasses all the sciences, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and psychology.

    My certification and license is as a Professional Engineer, a certification that is normally given only to those that have a degree in engineering, but is available to others that can pass a rigorous testing and evaluation program. I worked well over twenty years on problems related to ecology. This required practical expertise in every field of science, as any problem that had absolutely zero precedent to follow was always assigned to me.
     
  12. eclipsenow

    eclipsenow God cares about his creation as well as us.

    +997
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    I showed you that above. You didn't read my post? Even the DENIALISTS admit that they shouldn't use the 'warming stopped in 1998' argument!

    Of the top 3 climate monitoring units on the planet only Hadley says 1998 was the warmest, and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) has pointed to a cooling bias with the Hadley data.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...termediate.htm

    Two of the three most powerful temperature databases on the planet confirm 1998 as the THIRD warmest year on record, even when 1998 had one of the most frighteningly powerful El Nino's we've ever seen. Check it out — NOAA, NASA, then Hadley's CRU.

    The NCDC at NOAA says:
    ///For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 1998 is the third warmest year-to-date on record, at 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average."
    State of the Climate | Global Analysis - Annual 2010

    NASA GISTEMP confirms the same thing and says:
    "Global surface temperatures in 2010 tied 2005 as the warmest on record, according to an analysis released Wednesday by researchers at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.///
    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110112/

    And now Phil Jones at the CRU, but don't forget the ECMWF has had a go at this particular dataset.

    ///The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2010. According to the method of calculation used by CRU, the year 2010 was the equal third (see footnote) warmest on record (with 2003), exceeded by 1998 and 2005. The years 2003, 2005 and 2010 are only distinguishable in the third decimal place. The error estimate for individual years (two standard errors is about ±0.1°C, see Brohan et al., 2006) is at least ten times larger than the differences between these three years.

    The period 2001-2010 (0.44°C above 1961-90 mean) was 0.20°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade (0.24°C above 1961-90 mean). The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.55°C above the 1961-90 mean. After 1998, the next nine warmest years in the series are all in the decade 2001-2010. During this decade, only 2008 is not in the ten warmest years. Even though 2008 was the coldest year of the 21st century it was still the 12th warmest year of the whole record.///
    CRU Information Sheet no. 1: Global Temperature Record

    But rather than argue over hundredths of a degree, which is all that seems to separate the temperatures, have a look at the 15 year trend *all* 3 agencies report. Brilliant graphic here.
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-...nce/monitoring

    Even Denialist's are admitting it. At the 2009 Heartland Institute conference (of global warming sceptics), well known climate denialist Dr Patrick J Michaels warned against using the 1998 El Nino super-spike as some sort of 'proof' of a cooling trend. Take the advice of the words of a fellow Denialist.

    ///"Make an argument that you can get killed on and you will kill us all… If you loose credibility on this issue you lose this issue!"///
    1998 Revisited - YouTube

    So while Denialists selectively zoom in on a few data points to try and skew the story any way they want, overall, the trend is clear.
    Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Party like it's 1998 - YouTube
    The last decade was the hottest on record, and anyone who says otherwise is denying the best data on the planet and pushing an anti-science agenda of their own.
     
  13. eclipsenow

    eclipsenow God cares about his creation as well as us.

    +997
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    Good for you! That must be why you avoid the Radiative Forcing Equation and basic physics of Co2 every time I raise it!

    If you really want to disprove global warming, disprove the Radiative Forcing Equation below, which basically counts:-
    1. How Co2 traps heat (basic physics demonstrated in any physics lab on the entire PLANET!)
    2. How much Co2 there was before the Industrial Revolution.
    3. How much Co2 there is now.
    4. How much extra heat is trapped.

    Just find a paper that can disprove this following equation, and your work here is done.
    [​IMG]
     
  14. Codger

    Codger Regular Member

    +119
    Protestant
    Married
    US-Republican
    Stephen Hawking lectures that God is not needed for the creation of the universe. We need to pay attention to this important peer-reviewed proof because he has some very intelligent cosmologists who back him up on this - which are fellow Secular Humanist advocates.

    Stephen Hawking lays out case for Big Bang without God - Science

    As I said Atheists (or at best agnostics) believe that "It's up to us" since there is no God to fix any real or imagined problems with the world.
     
  15. Biblewriter

    Biblewriter Senior Member Supporter

    +1,332
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Conservatives
    I already recognized that it is unquestionably correct, in as far as it goes. But I also pointed out that using just this equation is neglecting other factors that have a much larger effect.
     
  16. eclipsenow

    eclipsenow God cares about his creation as well as us.

    +997
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    Such a fact-filled and insightful post from an engineer! ( :doh: :doh:)

    Seriously, Codger, what has happened to that sharp wit that used to be able to analyse a situation and reply so precisely on target.

    You might have said some absolute rubbish about global warming = Atheist conspiracy before, but hey, I replied to that didn't I? And you disproved my reply how, exactly, by just repeating your rubbish argument? (global warming = atheist conspiracy because a few climatologists might be atheists).

    Do you even remember how I replied? What I pointed out for your benefit? Or are you now an internet troll as well as clumsy in your arguments? :doh:

    Sir John Theodore Houghton CBE FLSW FRS (born 1931) is a Welsh scientist who was the co-chair of the Nobel Peace Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) scientific assessment working group. He was the lead editor of first three IPCC reports. He was professor in atmospheric physics at the University of Oxford, former Chief Executive at the Met Office and founder of the Hadley Centre.
    He is the chairman of the John Ray Initiative, an organisation "connecting Environment, Science and Christianity",[1] where he has compared the stewardship of the Earth, to the stewardship of the Garden of Eden by Adam and Eve.[2] He is a founder member of the International Society for Science and Religion. He is also the current president of the Victoria Institute.
    John T. Houghton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    But it's all an atheist conspiracy!!! :doh: Codger said so, on a Christian INTERNET FORUM, so it must be true!!! :doh: :doh:


    "Oh the humanity". How you've crashed and burned Codger!
     
  17. eclipsenow

    eclipsenow God cares about his creation as well as us.

    +997
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    Such as....?

    What is it with you both contributing such overwhelmingly scientific arguments? ;) :thumbsup: Help! I can't cope! The sheer evidence is overwhelming me... all the links to all those peer-reviewed papers... it's too much! ;)
     
  18. Biblewriter

    Biblewriter Senior Member Supporter

    +1,332
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Conservatives
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2013
  19. eclipsenow

    eclipsenow God cares about his creation as well as us.

    +997
    Australia
    Anglican
    Married
    Awesome link to an awesome peer-reviewed paper there! ;) :thumbsup:
     
  20. Biblewriter

    Biblewriter Senior Member Supporter

    +1,332
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Conservatives
    If instead of relying on the false confidence of "peer-reviewed" papers, you actually use your own mind a little, you will see that in the charts I posted, which [were, by the way, released by the Goddard EOS Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC,)] you will see that Co2 is already absorbing well over two-thirds of the total radiance is is capable of absorbing at any concentration, even if the atmosphere were to become 100%Co2. (In the wavenumber range of 525 to 725)

    But in the same charts you will also see that a change in the concentration of water can change the amount of radiation absorbed by the atmosphere much more than the total additional absorption available to Co2 in any quantity.


    Such facts are well known to physicists and engineers, but are largely ignored by global warming alarmists, even though their papers are "peer-reviewed."
     
    Last edited: Apr 18, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...