Global Warming Denial: Is there a good argument?

[Brightmoon]

Yes we are in danger from global warming. To add to the problems animals are getting smaller as a way to shed heat and in eutherians ( animals that have a fully formed uterus ) that smaller body is causing problems with heat stress on pregnancies , smaller broods or lower birth weights. It’s not just ocean acidification and mollusks, that this is affecting . Added to that, in larger animals like us , the heat in tropical climates is causing kidney problems . Yes that includes humans .
And then there’s the ones laymen know about . Sea level rise,horrible storms, wildfire danger, ice cap shrinkage , changed environmental disease and vermin parameters etc etc . Yeah this IS a big problem that dumb Donny and his ignorant ilk pretends isn’t happening

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes we are in danger from global warming. To add to the problems animals are getting smaller as a way to shed heat and in eutherians ( animals that have a fully formed uterus ) that smaller body is causing problems with heat stress on pregnancies , smaller broods or lower birth weights. It’s not just ocean acidification and mollusks, that this is affecting . Added to that, in larger animals like us , the heat in tropical climates is causing kidney problems . Yes that includes humans .
And then there’s the ones laymen know about . Sea level rise,horrible storms, wildfire danger, ice cap shrinkage , changed environmental disease and vermin parameters etc etc . Yeah this IS a big problem that dumb Donny and his ignorant ilk pretends isn’t happening

Perhaps that's why the whitetail deer population crashed several years ago. Biologists are stumped as to why it happened.

I'm guessing that evolution will solve the problem...eventually.

 

[visionary]

Any biblical evidence that this is prophesied.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Any biblical evidence that this is prophesied.

That statement was made with tongue-in-cheek (I just didn't place scare quotes around "evolution").

 

[Brightmoon]

Perhaps that's why the whitetail deer population crashed several years ago. Biologists are stumped as to why it happened.

I'm guessing that evolution will solve the problem...eventually.

iirc, my understanding is that they had a problem with a deer version of mad cow disease . People were advised not to eat venison

 

[OldWiseGuy]

iirc, my understanding is that they had a problem with a deer version of mad cow disease . People were advised not to eat venison

It's called "chronic wasting disease", which spreads slowly and is not the cause of the crash. It appears to be a reproduction failure more than anything else, including disease and predation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, there is no good argument against global warming. There are however plenty of good arguments against "man-made" or anthropomorphic global warming. People must learn to differentiate between the two.

As can be seen from the data, the global warming started around 25,000 years ago. It repeats in cycles approximately every 125,000 years.

So we must ask ourselves what is the effect of the increase in CO2 directly caused by man to this cycle?

As is clear from the data this cycle is lower in temperature than the past cycles. This is to be expected being that CO2 is an insulator, not a magic one-way mirror. It has kept heat out and prevented the earth from reaching the temperature highs of the past.

As is also clear from the data this warming period has lasted longer than the ones in the past cycles. This is to be expected being that CO2 is an insulator, not a magic one-way mirror. It has kept the heat that has gotten in from escaping back into space, therefore prolonging this warm spell before the inevitable collapse back into an ice age.

Final conclussion: Thank man for the CO2 or we would all be huddled around the campfire right now wearing our long johns and antarctic parkas to keep warm......

The real discussion is not global warming, but the cold periods that follow every natural heating cycle and it's affects to our agriculture and way of life.....

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, there is no good argument against global warming. There are however plenty of good arguments against "man-made" or anthropomorphic global warming. People must learn to differentiate between the two.

View attachment 247056
As can be seen from the data, the global warming started around 25,000 years ago. It repeats in cycles approximately every 125,000 years.

So we must ask ourselves what is the effect of the increase in CO2 directly caused by man to this cycle?

As is clear from the data this cycle is lower in temperature than the past cycles. This is to be expected being that CO2 is an insulator, not a magic one-way mirror. It has kept heat out and prevented the earth from reaching the temperature highs of the past.

As is also clear from the data this warming period has lasted longer than the ones in the past cycles. This is to be expected being that CO2 is an insulator, not a magic one-way mirror. It has kept the heat that has gotten in from escaping back into space, therefore prolonging this warm spell before the inevitable collapse back into an ice age.

Final conclussion: Thank man for the CO2 or we would all be huddled around the campfire right now wearing our long johns and antarctic parkas to keep warm......

The real discussion is not global warming, but the cold periods that follow every natural heating cycle and it's affects to our agriculture and way of life.....

It looks like the graph could also support the theory of cyclical ruin/restoration periods.

 

[mark kennedy]

It looks like the graph could also support the theory of cyclical ruin/restoration periods.

I sometimes have a hard time figuring this one out, but one thing is sure, the glaciers are melting:

The Little Ice Age was a period from about 1550 to 1850 when the world experienced relatively cooler temperatures compared to the present. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as the climate warmed substantially. Glacial retreat slowed and even reversed temporarily, in many cases, between 1950 and 1980 as global temperatures cooled slightly. Since 1980, a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existences of many of the remaining glaciers are threatened. (Retreat of glaciers since 1850. Wikipedia)
​

Global warming doesn't seem like hype to me, something is definitely going on here. Something else that was going on during the mid nineteenth century, did you know there was a population explosion happening then and continues to this day? More people, more industry and now, well, look at all the cars. I get skeptical sometimes and I'm not big on Darwinism because of it's animosity toward Christian thinking, however, it makes one wonder if we are not seeing natural selection doing it's thing here.

I'm on the bubble and am willing to listen to anything I think is reasonable, but glaciers melting, it's kind of hard to get around that one.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It looks like the graph could also support the theory of cyclical ruin/restoration periods.

That it could. Personally I think the time data is flawed for concrete reasons, but people that accept relativity usually ignore time dilation in an accelerating universe, as they can't then argue for their billions of years.....

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I sometimes have a hard time figuring this one out, but one thing is sure, the glaciers are melting:

The Little Ice Age was a period from about 1550 to 1850 when the world experienced relatively cooler temperatures compared to the present. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as the climate warmed substantially. Glacial retreat slowed and even reversed temporarily, in many cases, between 1950 and 1980 as global temperatures cooled slightly. Since 1980, a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existences of many of the remaining glaciers are threatened. (Retreat of glaciers since 1850. Wikipedia)
​

Global warming doesn't seem like hype to me, something is definitely going on here. Something else that was going on during the mid nineteenth century, did you know there was a population explosion happening then and continues to this day? More people, more industry and now, well, look at all the cars. I get skeptical sometimes and I'm not big on Darwinism because of it's animosity toward Christian thinking, however, it makes one wonder if we are not seeing natural selection doing it's thing here.

I'm on the bubble and am willing to listen to anything I think is reasonable, but glaciers melting, it's kind of hard to get around that one.

Ocean temperatures are the only reliable measure, regardless of regional weather or climate that may or may not support global warming measurements. By that measure the globe is certainly warming up.

Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content | NOAA Climate.gov

 

[SpiritualBeing]

How Earth's Future Could Soon Recreate a Lost World of 50 Million Years Ago


How Earth's Future Could Soon Recreate a Lost World of 50 Million Years Ago

Humans have pulled too hard on our planet's strings, and now we're at a point where the global climate itself is unravelling.

A new study suggests that if nothing is done to reduce our carbon emissions, we could essentially reverse 50 million years of long-term cooling in just a few generations.


The consequences could send us spiralling back in time by at least 3 million years. By 2030, the study predicts that Earth's climate may resemble the mid-Pliocene - the last great warm period before now, when the world was 1.8 degrees Celsius warmer (3.2 degrees Fahrenheit).

From that precarious spot, we could retreat even further. By 2150, the study suggests our climate could most resemble the ice-free Eocene of some 50 million years past, when there were extremely high carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures were roughly 13 degrees Celsius warmer (23.4 degrees Fahrenheit).

 

[visionary]

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

 

[GlabrousDory4]

No, there is no good argument against global warming. There are however plenty of good arguments against "man-made" or anthropomorphic global warming. People must learn to differentiate between the two.

This is where understanding the FORCINGS that drive climate change comes in handy. AND it's where we find some of the best use of PALEOCLIMATOLOGICAL DATA. In other words: for past climate changes (before man) we have some pretty good idea what drove the climate change. Obviously they were all "natural forcings" but NOW the climate change we are seeing CANNOT be attributed to natural forcings (at least to any real extent) without taking into account MAN'S ACTIVITIES. The forcings don't line up without anthropogenic factors in the mix.

View attachment 247056
As can be seen from the data, the global warming started around 25,000 years ago. It repeats in cycles approximately every 125,000 years.

THIS is where one is best served by understanding basic chemistry as well. CO2 can lag and lead. When you heat up a body of water like the ocean it will EXSOLVE gases like CO2 causing CO2 to come out of solution. Some gases exsolve from solution when the solution is heated.

But CO2 is ALSO known to be a CAUSE of global warming too! We have known for about 150 years that CO2 absorbs in the IR and we know pretty well how global warming works with excess CO2! It's straightforward and relatively simple science on the broad basis.

The ice ages are caused largely by ORBITAL CHANGES with the earth and the sun called MILANKOVICH CYCLES. These have nothing to do with CO2 causing the warming or cooling. But CO2 can be expected to EXSOLVE from oceans when they warm as they would be expected to do as we come out of an ice age.

Final conclussion: Thank man for the CO2 or we would all be huddled around the campfire right now wearing our long johns and antarctic parkas to keep warm......

We'd come out of the last ice age with or without man-made CO2. There's some evidence we may actually have been able to stall the next ice age though since the forcing due to human-released greenhouse gases and global warming might be able to overwhelm the Milankovich Cycles meaning we will likely be entering into uncharted territory for humanity.

The real discussion is not global warming, but the cold periods that follow every natural heating cycle and it's affects to our agriculture and way of life.....

No, the real discussion is: how have we failed so many Americans in teaching them simple chemistry and geology?

 

[GlabrousDory4]

I sometimes have a hard time figuring this one out, but one thing is sure, the glaciers are melting:

The Little Ice Age was a period from about 1550 to 1850 when the world experienced relatively cooler temperatures compared to the present. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as the climate warmed substantially. Glacial retreat slowed and even reversed temporarily, in many cases, between 1950 and 1980 as global temperatures cooled slightly. Since 1980, a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existences of many of the remaining glaciers are threatened. (Retreat of glaciers since 1850. Wikipedia)
​

Global warming doesn't seem like hype to me, something is definitely going on here. Something else that was going on during the mid nineteenth century, did you know there was a population explosion happening then and continues to this day? More people, more industry and now, well, look at all the cars. I get skeptical sometimes and I'm not big on Darwinism because of it's animosity toward Christian thinking, however, it makes one wonder if we are not seeing natural selection doing it's thing here.

I'm on the bubble and am willing to listen to anything I think is reasonable, but glaciers melting, it's kind of hard to get around that one.

There's a lot about the mid-19th century worthy of investigation. It is the point at which humankind starts large-scale industrialization and pumping vast amounts of vegetal and fossil fuel-derived CO2 into the atmosphere. Prior to the middle 19th century the ratio of 13-C to 12-C (isotopes of carbon) was relatively stable for about 10,000 years. Then in the mid-19th century suddenly the relative amount of lighter carbon (12-C) starts increasing in the atmospheric CO2. Just as one would expect from the mass burning of fossil and vegetal fuels. Exactly what we were doing.

Prior to atmospheric testing of nuclear bombs in the 1960's we were also seeing a decrease in 14-C in the atmospheric CO2, again, as to be expected from burning tons of coal (once we started detonating nukes in the atmosphere, though, we loaded it up with 14-C).

It's a giant human fingerprint on the excess CO2 in the atmosphere. We are solidly convicted of the crime. We know what that excess CO2 will do as well. It will take a long time to re-equilibrate back down to pre-industrial levels because it relies on the carbon cycle which is slow. So we've done the crime we now await the sentence I suppose.

One last thing: as for the melting ice sheets like on Greenland here's a fun potential outcome of that: it is dumping a lot of fresh water into the North Atlantic which is of a different density from the salt water that is there. It is dumping this in at the top of the Gulf Stream (Thermohaline circulation) which provides warmth for Western Europe. It's possible that our greenhouse effect warming will either re-organize or shut-down the Thermohaline Circulation causing the temperatures in western Europe to drop precipitously. Ironic that we can cause localized cooling as the entire globe warms but this has apparently happened in the past in geologic history (reorganization of the thermohaline circulation). So again, we await the sentence but just a back of the envelope calculation indicates it won't be good for the west in general.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses

NASA Scientist Warned That Deniers Would Distort His Antarctic Ice Study.

"A new NASA study found that there has been a net increase in land ice in Antarctica in recent years, despite a decline in some parts of the continent. The study's lead author astutely predicted that climate science deniers would distort the study, even though it does nothing to contradict the scientific consensus on climate change or the fact that sea levels will continue to rise."​

 

[Greatcloud]

All we have to do is look at the old denialist arguments they are still valid. For instance the Sun as the culprit is still a valid argument.

The sun is at a significantly higher output then most any time before. But you say it doesn't account for the warning we have.

But I am saying as the argument goes the sun's continues to produce at a high level and here is the key. High level for a long time acting like an oven and baking the earth. That's What accounts for all of the modern era warming

 

[GlabrousDory4]

All we have to do is look at the old denialist arguments they are still valid. For instance the Sun as the culprit is still a valid argument.

The sun is at a significantly higher output then most any time before. But you say it doesn't account for the warning we have.

But I am saying as the argument goes the sun's continues to produce at a high level and here is the key. High level for a long time acting like an oven and baking the earth. That's What accounts for all of the modern era warming

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

All we have to do is look at the old denialist arguments they are still valid. For instance the Sun as the culprit is still a valid argument.

The sun is at a significantly higher output then most any time before. But you say it doesn't account for the warning we have.

But I am saying as the argument goes the sun's continues to produce at a high level and here is the key. High level for a long time acting like an oven and baking the earth. That's What accounts for all of the modern era warming

Solar irradiation doesn't appear to be significant in climate change - it peaked around 60-odd years ago, has been cooling in recent years, and is expected to continue to do so for some time. See Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions.

 

[The Barbarian]

I can not prove it (so can’t anyone else), but I strongly suspect the increase of CO2 is A Consequence of global warming. Challenge anyone who says otherwise.

One would expect the opposite. Warmer seas would encourage more phytoplankton, and more photosynthesis, which would take up more carbon dioxide. Phytoplankton are the primary agents for sequestering carbon dioxide. Even more than forests and grasslands.

On the other hand, we know that an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means more absorbtion of thermal energy.

So it fails on very basic principles.