Global warming and the end

[eclipsenow]

I am not going to play your silly games.

I have already demonstrated that the historical data, written in the ice cores, plainly shows that CO2 concentration is an effect of global warming, not a cause. And you have already stated that climatologists know this.

Yet they (and you) keep harping on the lie that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will cause global warming.

QED

Of course, as one totally ignorant of science, you probably do not know that this is a Greek abbreviation for, "which was to be demonstrated."

Enjoy your cool-aid, since you love it.

You couldn't even tell me what the peer-reviewed science says causes an ice age? You don't know what you're talking about!

enjoy

****


Denialist's love to attack Al Gore for many reasons, whether his jet-setting lifestyle or energy intense mansions, or for his movie. His presentation of the Ice Ages in 'An Inconvenient Truth' gets a lot of attention. Al Gore *seemed* to suggest that climate science was based on the idea that changes in CO2 caused the Ice Ages. Rises in CO2 melted the ice, and drops in CO2 caused the Ice Age to creep back. But Denialists correctly jump on this, pointing out that temperature changed first and *then* 700 or 800 years the CO2 changes followed. Something changed the temperature FIRST, and only AFTER many centuries did the CO2 eventually follow. The whole of climate science was undermined! This argument featured prominently in Martin Durkin's 'Great Global Warming Swindle', and originally had me questioning climate science.

Except it's a bunch of clever half-truth's covering a lie of omission.

1. Climate scientists have always known this! Al Gore over-simplified a rather complex scientific story, but any good climate journal on the subject will admit that the ice age story begins with long wobbles in the Earth's orbit and tilt that cause changes in incoming sunlight and where that sunlight hits. The temperature changes first because of changes in how the Earth receives sunlight. (These wobbles are called Milankovitch cycles and you can read more about them at wikipedia:
Milankovitch cycles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or watch fantastic animations of them at 'Climate Crock of the Week'.
The "Temp Leads Carbon" Crock: Updated - YouTube

2. Climate science was *never* based on *just* that graph, but on the demonstrable physics of CO2 as a heat-trapper. Physicists measure CO2's heat trapping properties with a Fourier device. It's the same result, every time. It's an established fact, like the boiling point of water or melting point of various metals. It's old science, something you look up in a book rather than bothering to test again and again, reinventing the wheel. The rest is maths. Calculate how much CO2 was in the air before the Industrial Revolution, and then measure how much extra we've dumped into the atmosphere now, and the difference shows how much extra heat is trapped. The next bit is the tricky part of measuring where that heat *goes* and how it interacts with other systems on the earth (but that's another story).

3. But there's a problem with Milankovitch cycles. The increased or reduced sunlight is not enough to cause the *immense* changes in temperature that we observe! It turns out that the Milankovitch wobble's dimmer sunlight 'triggers' the ice age, but as ice grows it traps CO2 in under frozen permafrost, locking it out of the normal CO2 cycles. As the temperatures drop, more CO2 is trapped, more ice acts like a mirror bouncing sunlight back into space before it can be absorbed and turned into heat, and the cycle continues. The final result? Roughly 40% of the change actually comes from CO2 being trapped (or released) by changes in the ice. (See the 2nd paragraph, column 2 of page 144).
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1990_Lorius_etal.pdf
In other words, if the 'wobbles' are the 'trigger', then CO2 is the gunpowder that propels this 'climate shot' along.

From this more detailed perspective Al Gore was almost right! The CO2 *did* account for the *eventual* extremes of temperature we see at the depths of a bad Ice Age, and the release of the CO2 accounts for the much warmer temperatures between Ice Ages. Not only that, but it adds extra urgency to our situation today. Milankovitch cycles will not cause the next ice age for tens of thousands of years. We're the 'trigger' messing with the carbon cycle today. We're the ones adding 9 billion tons of carbon to the carbon cycle each year as we burn coal and oil and gas. We're the ones adding 9 billion tons of carbon to the carbon cycle each year which is acidifying the oceans and undermining the base of the food web across our entire ocean ecosystems. We're the ones adding 9 billion tons of carbon to the carbon cycle each year as we burn coal and oil and gas which poisons us, killing an estimated 7 million people a year.

25 March 2014 | Geneva - In new estimates released today, WHO reports that in 2012 around 7 million people died - one in eight of total global deaths – as a result of air pollution exposure. This finding more than doubles previous estimates and confirms that air pollution is now the world’s largest single environmental health risk. Reducing air pollution could save millions of lives.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-pollution/en/


And worst of all, we're the ones adding 9 billion tons of carbon to the carbon cycle each year as we burn coal and oil and gas, which will artificially push our temperatures higher than interglacial warming events for the last 55 million years, and shove our climate into a situation where the Siberian peat bogs start to thaw, releasing over twice as much carbon than there is burnable fossil fuels! Inch by inch we are pushing our civilisation towards a climate cliff, and soon gravity will take over. We rely on the 'warm' climate in which this civilisation developed. It's not 'cold' as in an 'ice age', or 'hot' as in the dinosaur era. It's just right: a Goldilocks climate. We're messing with that, and the results will be catastrophic.

But a Denialist will never tell you all this. They just ask "How can CO2 affect climate when it RESPONDS to changes in temperature!" They leave out half the story. As always.

 

[eclipsenow]

Any replies Biblewriter? You're a bit quiet there mate.

 

[Biblewriter]

Any replies Biblewriter? You're a bit quiet there mate.

I have warned you, and you prefer to listen to the liars. Enjoy your Kool-aid.

 

[Interplanner]

For years a photography paper plant near us had emissions that drifted into the national park. It was an unpleasant aroma to be sure when it did, like melted but not quite burnt plastic. It was amazing how many claims were made and taken back as testing was done about all those years.

In the same location this year, the U Washington had a collection site as they studied fertilizer nitrogen that had been aloft for 40 years. it was in the same wind pattern as the above, so this delicate, pristeen, 6000 foot elevation site should have looked raped, by all accounts. I did write the Ph.D. candidate once and learned that nothing of either kind was showing in the collections.

I commented that I had no microscope, so what would a lay person look for as indicator of the 40 years of accumulations? Brown sludge? Ground cover that was rust colored instead of noble fir green? There just wasn't anything, and beyond (downwind) from the collection site was a huge Elwha river valley which continues as first was the first color photographs of it were available. It's just really hard to stay with "science" that is that elusive.

 

[eclipsenow]

I have warned you, and you prefer to listen to the liars. Enjoy your Kool-aid.

Listen here sonny, I've warned you about Denialist websites before. You were taken in. You have demonstrated that you believe the myths and legends and fantasies and constructs of the denialista. You have been absolutely and utterly caught out on this one: and are now speechless. Your rebellion of the mind dishonours your Creator and sacrifices Christian credibility on modern issues. It's a real shame, as you more than anyone here demonstrate that someone with intelligence and scientific training can let dogma dictate what they will believe. You've shot your own credibility down in flames, and everything you have to say on this subject is a complete and utter farce.

I mean, this is basic IPCC reading. You should have known about the Milankovitch cycles if you were going to criticise the climate science at this point. I assumed you would have at least read some of the IPCC stuff you disagree with so violently: being a scientist and all. That was my mistake. You haven't even bothered to check what the IPCC says on the temperature changes preceding CO2 (covered at the link below, with a sample paragraph here).

Starting with the ice ages that have come and gone in regular cycles for the past nearly three million years, there is strong evidence that these are linked to regular variations in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, the so-called Milankovitch cycles (Figure 1). These cycles change the amount of solar radiation received at each latitude in each season (but hardly affect the global annual mean), and they can be calculated with astronomical precision. There is still some discussion about how exactly this starts and ends ice ages, but many studies suggest that the amount of summer sunshine on northern continents is crucial: if it drops below a critical value, snow from the past winter does not melt away in summer and an ice sheet starts to grow as more and more snow accumulates. Climate model simulations confirm that an Ice Age can indeed be started in this way, while simple conceptual models have been used to successfully ‘hindcast’ the onset of past glaciations based on the orbital changes. The next large reduction in northern summer insolation, similar to those that started past Ice Ages, is due to begin in 30,000 years.

It goes on to document that YES, there were even HOTTER periods on earth's history than today: and explains why. But this is all irrelevant to you. You just want to throw stones from a distance without even reading the evidence you're criticising. How very scientific of you!

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-6-1.html

 

[eclipsenow]

For years a photography paper plant near us had emissions that drifted into the national park. It was an unpleasant aroma to be sure when it did, like melted but not quite burnt plastic. It was amazing how many claims were made and taken back as testing was done about all those years.

In the same location this year, the U Washington had a collection site as they studied fertilizer nitrogen that had been aloft for 40 years. it was in the same wind pattern as the above, so this delicate, pristeen, 6000 foot elevation site should have looked raped, by all accounts. I did write the Ph.D. candidate once and learned that nothing of either kind was showing in the collections.

I commented that I had no microscope, so what would a lay person look for as indicator of the 40 years of accumulations? Brown sludge? Ground cover that was rust colored instead of noble fir green? There just wasn't anything, and beyond (downwind) from the collection site was a huge Elwha river valley which continues as first was the first color photographs of it were available. It's just really hard to stay with "science" that is that elusive.

Off topic + unverified = meaningless rant

When you have something to say on subject, I might get interested. (yawns)

 

[eclipsenow]

Stunning comeback Biblewriter! So full of peer-reviewed scientific links that completely refute the Milankovitch wobble => temperature change => ice sheet increase => CO2 decrease => 40% extra reduction in temperature super-ice-age crash hypothesis. (And the mirror image of all this when the Milankovitch wobble goes back the other way to trigger warming).


Yeah, you really disproved climate change with the 'temps lead carbon changes' myth. No, really.

Oh, and climatologists didn't know a thing about the temperatures changing first did they?

 

[Biblewriter]

Stunning comeback Biblewriter! So full of peer-reviewed scientific links that completely refute the Milankovitch wobble => temperature change => ice sheet increase => CO2 decrease => 40% extra reduction in temperature super-ice-age crash hypothesis. (And the mirror image of all this when the Milankovitch wobble goes back the other way to trigger warming).


Yeah, you really disproved climate change with the 'temps lead carbon changes' myth. No, really.

Oh, and climatologists didn't know a thing about the temperatures changing first did they?

As I said, if they knew about it, they already knew their therou was a blatant fraud before they even began to produce their manufactures evidence. And of course there are no denials in "peer reviewed" Climate science journals. For the climategate emails revealed the conspiracy to deny "peer review" to any "deniers."

 

[10s3r]

Notice you haven't been hearing much from the Republicans about global warming? It's pretty difficult to debunk global warming when the data acquired by the worlds' top scientist, from satellites, the ISS, and the Shuttle, etc., who have been studying it for the last 20 years....IS ALL IN ACCORD!

Global Warming, better called, "climate change," has become a total embarrassment to the Republicans. Mobil Corp. who is owned by about 95% Republican, is being sued by these scientist for defamation. Mobil had long television adds accusing these scientist of forging false data and promoting false information.

People can remain in denial about global warming if they like. But they are putting their politics ahead of the factual data.

 

[7sForDays]

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=global+warming+hoax

 

[eclipsenow]

Christian climatologist speaks out:

Why is Hayhoe in the spotlight? Simply put, millions of Americans are evangelical Christians, and their belief in the science of global warming is well below the national average. And if anyone has a chance of reaching this vast and important audience, Hayhoe does. "I feel like the conservative community, the evangelical community, and many other Christian communities, I feel like we have been lied to," explains Hayhoe on the latest episode of the Inquiring Minds podcast. "We have been given information about climate change that is not true. We have been told that it is incompatible with our values, whereas in fact it's entirely compatible with conservative and with Christian values."

and....

2. Yes, God Would Let This Happen. One conservative Christian argument is that God just wouldn't let human activities ruin the creation. Or, as Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma has put it, "God's still up there, and the arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what he is doing in the climate, is to me, outrageous." You can watch Inhofe and other religious right politicians dismissing climate change on biblical grounds in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ9lmXIKZlQ

Hayhoe thinks the answer to Inhofe's objection is simple: From a Christian perspective, we have free will to make decisions and must live with their consequences. This is, after all, a classic Christian solution to the theological problem of evil. "Are bad things happening? Yes, all the time," says Hayhoe. "Someone gets drunk, they get behind the wheel of a car, they kill an innocent bystander, possibly even a child or a mother."
Climate change is, to Hayhoe, just another wrong, another problem, brought on by flawed humans exercising their wills in a way that is less than fully advisable. "That's really what climate change is," she says. "It's a casualty of the decisions that we have made."
3. The Bible Does Not Approve of Letting the World Burn. Hayhoe agrees with the common liberal perception that the evangelical community contains a significant proportion of apocalyptic or end-times believers—and that this belief, literally that judgment is upon us, undermines their concern about preserving the planet. But she thinks there's something very wrong with that outlook, and indeed, that the Bible itself refutes it.
"The message that, we don't care about anybody else, screw everybody, and let the world burn, that message is not a consistent message in the Bible," says Hayhoe. In particular, she thinks the apostle Paul has a pretty good answer to end-times believers in his second epistle to the Thessalonians. Hayhoe breaks Paul's message down like this: "I've heard that you've been quitting your jobs, you have been laying around and doing nothing, because you think that Christ is returning and the world is ending." But Paul serves up a rebuke. In Hayhoe's words: "Get a job, support yourself and your family, care for others—again, the poor and the vulnerable who can't care for themselves—and do what you can, essentially, to make the world a better place, because nobody knows when that's going to happen."

One reason some evangelicals dismiss climate worries is an apocalyptic worldview. Igor Zh./Shutterstock

4. Even If You Believe in a Young Earth, It's Still Warming. One reason there's such a tension between the evangelical community and science is, well, science. Many evangelicals are Young-Earth creationists, who believe that the Earth is 6,000 or so years old.
Hayhoe isn't one of those. She studied astrophysics, and quasars that are quite ancient; and as she notes, believing the Earth and universe to be young creates a pretty problematic understanding of God: "Either you have to believe that God created everything looking as if it were billions of years old, or you have to believe it is billions of years old." In the former case, God would, in effect, seem to be trying to trick us.
But when it comes to talking to evangelical audiences about climate change, Hayhoe doesn't emphasize the age of the Earth, simply because, she says, there's no need. "When I talk to Christian audiences, I only show ice core data and other proxy data going back 6,000 years," says Hayhoe, "because I believe that you can make an even stronger case, for the massive way in which humans have interfered with the natural system, by only looking at a shorter period of time."

6,000 years of temperatures records and a projection of the warming to come. Jos Hagelaars/My View on Climate Change

"In terms of addressing the climate issue," says Hayhoe, "we don't have time for everybody to get on the same page regarding the age of the universe."
5. "Caring for our environment is caring for people." Finally, Hayhoe thinks it is crucial to emphasize to evangelicals that saving the planet is about saving people...not just saving animals. "I think there's this perception," says Hayhoe, "that if an environmentalist were driving down the road…and they saw a baby seal on one side and they saw a human on the other side, they would veer out of the way to avoid the baby seal and run down the human." That's why it's so important, in her mind, to emphasize how climate change affects people (a logic once again affirming the perception that the polar bear was a terrible symbol for global warming). And there's bountiful evidence of this: The just-released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's "Working Group II" report on climate impacts emphasizes threats to our food supply, a risk of worsening violence in a warming world, and the potential displacement of vulnerable populations.
So is the message working? Hayhoe thinks so. After all, while only 44 percent of evangelicals may accept modern climate science today, she notes that that's considerable progress from a 2008 Pew poll, which had that number at just 34 percent. Ultimately, for Hayhoe, it comes down to this: "If you believe that God created the world, and basically gave it to humans as this incredible gift to live on, then why would you treat it like garbage? Treating the world like garbage says a lot about how you think about the person who you believe created the Earth."
To listen to the full interview with Katharine Hayhoe, you can stream below:

This episode of Inquiring Minds, a podcast hosted by neuroscientist and musician Indre Viskontas and best-selling author Chris Mooney, also features a discussion of recent findings that laboratory mice respond differently to male researchers, and new breakthroughs in "therapeutic cloning," or the creation of embryonic stem cell lines from cloned embryos.

How To Convince Conservative Christians That Global Warming Is Real | Mother Jones

 

[eclipsenow]

(double posted somehow)

 

[eclipsenow]

Notice you haven't been hearing much from the Republicans about global warming? It's pretty difficult to debunk global warming when the data acquired by the worlds' top scientist, from satellites, the ISS, and the Shuttle, etc., who have been studying it for the last 20 years....IS ALL IN ACCORD!

Global Warming, better called, "climate change," has become a total embarrassment to the Republicans. Mobil Corp. who is owned by about 95% Republican, is being sued by these scientist for defamation. Mobil had long television adds accusing these scientist of forging false data and promoting false information.

People can remain in denial about global warming if they like. But they are putting their politics ahead of the factual data.

I hear you!

 

[eclipsenow]

As I said, if they knew about it, they already knew their therou was a blatant fraud before they even began to produce their manufactures evidence. And of course there are no denials in "peer reviewed" Climate science journals. For the climategate emails revealed the conspiracy to deny "peer review" to any "deniers."

If you really believe that over-blown kangaroo court known as 'climategate', then you've been hoodwinked by a media circus and have even less credibility. Dozens of parliamentary and independent committees and tribunals have verified the science (while making a few recommendations about making some private data public). Your credibility decreases with each post. I geniunely feel for the frightening, frustrating world you must carry around in your head. Every climate report you see on the news must have you grating your teeth. I'm sorry for you.

 

[eclipsenow]

Conservative governments are all so objective on climate change and the environment! There's never any conflict of interest. Conservatives are always behaving in the best interest of citizens: not just big business. Trust me. I think a teeny tiny government is good.

A mining company's corporate affairs chief has been in charge of developing environmental policy for Queensland's Liberal National party government since 2012, according to reports.
James Mackay, QCoal's corporate affairs chief, also worked full-time for the LNP during the 2012 election, while he was being paid $10,000 a month by the coal company, the ABC has reported.
Activists say the Queensland government has given the "keys to the blood bank to Dracula" by letting a mining company staffer write its environmental policies. Greenpeace says the revelations are extraordinary.

Queensland environmental policy developed by QCoal worker, says report | World news | theguardian.com

 

[eclipsenow]

"Current projections of sea level rise, agreed upon by international surveys, do not account for the Antarctic ice sheet melting."

The Antarctic dam has burst. It's unstoppable. Good luck to our grandchildren!
West Antarctic ice sheet collapse 'unstoppable' › News in Science (ABC Science)

 

[Biblewriter]

"Current projections of sea level rise, agreed upon by international surveys, do not account for the Antarctic ice sheet melting."

The Antarctic dam has burst. It's unstoppable. Good luck to our grandchildren!
West Antarctic ice sheet collapse 'unstoppable' › News in Science (ABC Science)

When this news came out a few days ago I was highly amused, for I distinctly remembered this other news from only a few weeks ago:
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

The first article on this page shows that, although Arctic ice coverage is still less that the1981-2010 average, it is rising every year. But the last article on this page very plainly declares that Antarctic sea ice coverage is at its highest lever ever recorded.

But then, of course, eclipsenow will say you can't trust anything published by a denialist source like NASA.

This other link is also very revealing, particularly notice the last sentence of the description of the book.

The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth About Global Warming: Fred Pearce: 9780852652299: Amazon.com: Books

 

[interpreter]

I don't see how any Christian can deny global warming when it is prophesied in their Bible (see Rev. 16:8-9).

 

[Biblewriter]

I don't see how any Christian can deny global warming when it is prophesied in their Bible (see Rev. 16:8-9).

In the place you speak of, it explicitly says the cause would be an increase in the heat coming from the sun, not something caused by mankind.

But I am satisfied that this, being part of a vision, is symbolic, rather than literal.

 

[eclipsenow]

When this news came out a few days ago I was highly amused, for I distinctly remembered this other news from only a few weeks ago:
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

The first article on this page shows that, although Arctic ice coverage is still less that the1981-2010 average, it is rising every year. But the last article on this page very plainly declares that Antarctic sea ice coverage is at its highest lever ever recorded.

? The article I quoted was talking about Antarctica generally, while it is well known that local climate conditions have made some areas colder. From your link above.

"The increased extent in the Weddell Sea region appears to be associated with a broad area of persistent easterly winds in March and April, and lower-than-average temperatures (1 to 2 degrees Celsius, or 2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than the 1981-2010 average). A separate region of cool conditions extends over the southern Indian Ocean coastline, with temperatures as much as 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler than average. However, across much of the far Southern Hemisphere, temperatures have been above average: for example, in the southern Antarctic Peninsula, temperatures have been 1 to 2 degrees Celsius (2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit) above average; in the southern South Pacific, temperatures have been 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius (3 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit) above average, and up to 4 degrees Celsius (7 degrees Fahrenheit) above average in the area near the South Pole."

From wikipedia:

"
Climate[edit]

The predominance of strong surface winds parallel to the narrow and tall mountain range of the Antarctic Peninsula is a remarkable feature of weather and climate in the area of the western Weddell Sea. The winds carry cold air toward lower latitudes and turn into southwesterlies farther north. These winds are of interest not only because of their effect on the temperature regime east of the peninsula but also because they force the drift of ice northeastward into the South Atlantic Ocean as the last branch of the clockwise circulation in the lower layers of the atmosphere along the coasts of the Weddell Sea. The sharp contrast between the wind, temperature, and ice conditions of the two sides of the Antractic Peninsula has been well known for many years.[7]
Strong surface winds directed equatorward along the east side of the Antarctic Peninsula can appear in two different types of synoptic-meteorological situations: (1) an intense cyclone over the central Weddell Sea, (2) a broad east to west flow of stable cold air in the lowest 500- to 1000-m layer of the atmosphere over the central and/or southern Weddell Sea toward the peninsula. These conditions lead to cold air piling up on the east edge of the mountains. This process leads to the formation of a high-pressure ridge over the peninsula (mainly east of the peak) and, therefore, a deflection of the originally westward current of air to the right, along the mountain wall.[7]"
Weddell Sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But then, of course, eclipsenow will say you can't trust anything published by a denialist source like NASA.

But then of course, as usual, you haven't even read about the stuff you're discussing. Those climatologist just didn't KNOW about temp => carbon cycle in the ice ages, did they? (When it turns out climate sensitivities are somewhat BASED on the complicated, counter-intiutive story that the icage age cycles tells us).

So there is built up ice north east of the Antarctic Peninsula. So what? Climatologists already know this. Are you suggesting they don't? Are you again suckered in by Denialist propaganda that they just don't know all this stuff? Ha ha! You're a funny old dude Biblewriter, it's a well known local micro-climate caused by well known local mountain and wind conditions. (Just as the temperatures triggering carbon cycles in the ice age cycle is also well known by climate science!)

We're talking about GLOBAL warming, which is destroying the enormous glaciers SOUTH of the Antarctic peninsula. This video demonstrates why the melt there is unstoppable.

PS: In case you can't be bothered watching it, the larger ice sheet YOU'RE raving about in a vain attempt to try to distract us from the REAL concern is NORTH of all the red, get it? The bit the climatologists are warning us about is all the red, get it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2pYHMx5bN8