• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Global Warming in Context?

LordTimothytheWise

Fides Quaerens Intellectum
Nov 8, 2007
750
27
✟23,542.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI&feature=player_embedded

I am looking for opinions and arguments.

In context of this above information, is anthropogenic global warming a serious issue to us?

Obviously the video has one slant, however, generally the posters on this forum have a different slant, so what is the other side to this?
 

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟26,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
In context of this above information, is anthropogenic global warming a serious issue to us?
No.

The facts are these:

1) CO2 is less than 00.038% of the Earth's atmosphere and plants require it for photosynthesis.

2) the atmosphere has been cooling since 1993.

3) the oceans have been cooling since 2003.

4) Mars's atmosphere is 95% CO2 and it's freezing cold.

If you watch this scientific perspective there is no possible way you can believe in the AGW Myth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8
 
Upvote 0
S

Steezie

Guest
1) CO2 is less than 00.038% of the Earth's atmosphere
And it takes only half a gram of cyanide ingested to kill someone.

A little bit of something can go a long way.

plants require it for photosynthesis.
So what?

2) the atmosphere has been cooling since 1993.
No, no it hasnt Recent Climate Change - Annual Average Global Surface Temperature Anomalies 1880-2008 | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

3) the oceans have been cooling since 2003.
Again, no it hasnt
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

4) Mars's atmosphere is 95% CO2 and it's freezing cold.
Mars is 40% smaller than us, is further away from the sun, has no plant life, no indusry, no water, no animal life, and has a very thin atmosphere.

Using Mars as an indicator in this instance does not work


66066d1255709002-when-market-trouble-drop-dollar-re-9-41am-post-fractal-wrongness.jpg
 
Upvote 0

sbvera13

Senior Member
Mar 6, 2007
1,914
182
✟25,490.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
In Relationship
1. The "hockey stick" goes only to the current date- it's predicted to rise much higher. Just because it's not very significant now, does not mean it will stay that way.

2. Putting it into perspective regarding the past does nothing to mitigate the effects that it will have. Low lying agricultural nations, such as Indonesia and parts of China, will be seriously affected by even a small change. Even though that change is minor compared to the history of the Earth, it still has the ability to affect billions of people.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟26,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
If you take away the 0.038% of the atmosphere that is CO2 you will kill almost every living thing on the Earth. Is that your goal?

No, no it hasn't
Yes, yes it has: http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

Again, no it hasnt
Again, yes it has!

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06318_Ocean_Cooling.html

The average temperature of the water near the top of the Earth's oceans has significantly cooled since 2003.

***

Mars is 40% smaller than us, is further away from the sun, has no plant life, no indusry, no water, no animal life, and has a very thin atmosphere.
Then you admit that the Sun and not CO2 controls the climate and you also admit that most CO2 does not have an anthropogenic source.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
S

Steezie

Guest
If you take away the 0.038% of the atmosphere that is CO2 you will kill almost every living thing on the Earth. If that your goal?
No one is going to "take away" the Co2

Yes, yes it has
KSU news VS the EPA....you lose, sonny

Again, yes it has!
The ocean has had a short term drop, however the longterm trend has been towards warming.

Then you admit that the Sun and not CO2 controls the climate
Both play a role. Co2 traps solar radiation which increases the temperature. Mars' thin atmosphere doesnt have enough CO2 to effectively trap CO2 and raise the temperature.

and you also admit that most CO2 does not have an anthropogenic source.
Co2 does have natural sources such as decomposition of living materials and exhalation from animals. The problem is that there is a natural balance between the Co2 that the natural world produces and processes that helps regulate climate. Our industrial activity throws up more Co2 (among other things) than the planet can process on top of the fact that we're destroying the natural mechanisms that process Co2. The consequence is a rise in global temperatures because of the excess Co2 levels in our atmosphere.

This leads to a melting of the polar ice caps which dumps fresh, cold water into our thermohaline cycle and disrupts the temperature/salinity balance that makes it run and we risk shutting it down. If we shut it down, we disable a mechanism that helps regulate global temperatures (warm water warms the air around it) and then you have the onset of an ice age.

Global Warming 101

School's out, kid.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟26,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Mars' thin atmosphere doesnt have enough CO2 to effectively trap CO2 and raise the temperature.
So a 95% CO2 atmosphere isn't enough but a 0.038% CO2 atmosphere is?

How does that math work?
 
Upvote 0
S

Steezie

Guest
So a 95% CO2 atmosphere isn't enough but a 0.038% CO2 atmosphere is?

How does that math work?
This is BASIC math, I am dyscalculic and I can get my head around this, you have no excuses.

The percent value does not indicate quantity. If I have a 100 gallon drum that's only 25% full, you coming up and saying "I have more water because I have a cup of water because it's 100% full" is not true. Percentages do not necessarily dictate actual quantity.

Ton for ton, Earth probably has more actual Co2 in it's atmosphere because we simply have more area to fill, we're bigger. You could actually calculate that out if you had the patience, I dont at the moment.

The Earth has a much thicker atmosphere than Mars. Because Mars has low gravity, it cant hold a thick atmosphere. Here on Earth, we have a much denser atmosphere so it takes far less Co2 to regulate temperature than on Mars because we have so much other STUFF in our atmosphere. So, yes there's Co2, but Co2 is only part of the equation and it takes more than JUST a lot of Co2 to raise the temperature of a planet, thats why we call them "greenhouse gases"

Now, I know what you're going to say, "So it's that other stuff that also regulates temperature and NOT Co2!" That's incorrect. Co2 is one part of the atmospheric system that helps regulate solar radiation reflection and retention. It also happens to be one of our biggest and most preventable contributions to unbalancing that system.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟26,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
This is BASIC math, I am dyscalculic and I can get my head around this, you have no excuses.

The percent value does not indicate quantity. If I have a 100 gallon drum that's only 25% full, you coming up and saying "I have more water because I have a cup of water because it's 100% full" is not true. Percentages do not necessarily dictate actual quantity.
So the percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant but the volume of CO2 is what matters. How much volume of CO2 contributes to one degree of temperature?

thats why we call them "greenhouse gases"
The reason why you call them "greenhouse gases" is because you can't accept the reality that Venus is a new planet.

"As Zeus's daughter [Venus] she'll be immortal and live in heaven with her brothers, Pollux and Castor, the heavenly twins, an extra star for ships to steer their courses by." -- Euripides, playwright, Orestes, 408 B.C.
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Site Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,070
16,820
Dallas
✟918,891.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
"As Zeus's daughter [Venus] she'll be immortal and live in heaven with her brothers, Pollux and Castor, the heavenly twins, an extra star for ships to steer their courses by." -- Euripides, playwright, Orestes, 408 B.C.

This is one of the more bizarre claims you have made here. Any evidence other than a line from a play?
 
Upvote 0
S

Steezie

Guest
So the percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevant but the volume of CO2 is what matters.
I wouldnt put it quite that simply but I would say that both percentage and volume play a role.

How much volume of CO2 contributes to one degree of temperature?
I wouldnt even begin to know how to calculate that. Im not even sure you could because of all the variables.

The reason why you call them "greenhouse gases" is because you can't accept the reality that Venus is a new planet.

"As Zeus's daughter [Venus] she'll be immortal and live in heaven with her brothers, Pollux and Castor, the heavenly twins, an extra star for ships to steer their courses by." -- Euripides, playwright, Orestes, 408 B.C.
What on EARTH does that have to do with this?
\
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟26,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
I wouldnt even begin to know how to calculate that. Im not even sure you could because of all the variables.
That's why no scientist takes global warming seriously.

The only people who believe in AGW are pseudoscientists like Al Gore who claim that the mantle is several million degrees.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns_4pzfOSTc

"...no matter what the temperature of the outer core is, and most likely it is quite high, the mantle is cold, and its rigidity increases with depth, because otherwise seismic wave velocity cannot increase with depth, for example for P waves from 6-7 km/sec in the surface layers to about 14 km/sec at the mantle-core boundary." -- Stavros T. Tassos, seismologist, October 2008

"Besides, the mantle is cold...." -- Ya-Chuan Lai, geophysicist, January 2008

"Antarctica is tectonically stable and it's upper mantle is seismologically fast, suggesting that the mantle is cold...." -- Thomas James, geologist, November 2007

"It is established fact, however, that there is not any physically observed discontinuity between deep crust and upper mantle at around 100 km depth, and the continents are observed to have continuous mantle rock roots extending as deep as 600 km (Grand, 1987; Grand et al., 1997). So the question is naturally raised: How is it possible for the upper 100 km of a continent, e.g., North America, to move horizontally by several thousand kilometers at all, under any circumstances, when global seismic tomography data indicate deep continuous roots from the surface down to 600 km depth?" -- Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist) and David J. Ford (geologist), 2005

"Observations at certain points on the Earth's surface, or very close to it, e.g., down mine shafts and from deep continental drilling projects, show that temperature increases by 20° to 30°C per kilometer. If that thermal gradient continues unchanged down to a depth of 40 km, the temperature would be from 800° to 1200°C, which is around the melting point of all rocks. Similarly, at the mantle-core boundary, at about 2900 km, it would be from 58,000° to 87,000°C. Nobody claims such absurd ambient temperatures exist in Earth's lower crust or mantle. Actually, considering the amount of heat energy conventionally proposed to do the mechanical work, e.g. to motivate the supposed bulk convection of semi-fluid rocks, the thermal gradient and, therefore, the temperature inside the Earth, should be much greater than is physically reasonable." -- Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist) and David J. Ford (geologist), 2005

"Below we will show some of the simple physical reasons why the present geodynamic and geotectonic paradigms are so dramatically wrong, and why continents cannot move like 'rafts' on a 'sea' of convecting semifluid hot mantle." -- Stavros T. Tassos (seismologist) and David J. Ford (geologist), 2005

"Earth's temperature profile (the geotherm) is mostly constrained by phase transitions, such as freezing at the inner-core boundary or changes in crystal structure within the solid mantle, that are detected as discontinuities in seismic wave speed and for which the pressure and temperature conditions can be constrained by experiment and theory." -- John W. Hernlund, Christine Thomas, and Paul J. Tackley, geophysicists, February 2005

"Electric fields that propogated through the resistive basement were detected by seafloor receivers at ranges of 10-65 km. Data from that particular expedition using the research vessels New Horizon and Ellen B. Scripps, were said to be consistent with a simple 1D Earth model consisting of 3-7 km crustal layer of moderate conductivity underlain by a thicker region of very low conductivity. The upper mantle is itself cold and dry Constable believes." -- Constable's Magnetic Attraction to the Marine EM Business, First Break, Volume 23, January 2005

"The first thing to realize about hotspots is that they are not hot. It is important to realize that they are not, strictly speaking, spots either, but it is easiest if you try and realize that a little later, after you’ve realized that everything you’ve realized up to that moment is not true." -- Don L. Anderson, seismologist, 2004

"The origin of the depth anomaly at the AAD is generally attributed to colder than normal mantle temperatures...." -- Michael H. Ritzwoller, geophysicist, et al., 2003

"The existence of a 500 km x 1500 km cold mantle anomaly that is compositionally distinct from the surrounding lithosphere will affect mantle flow." -- Michael H. Ritzwoller, geophysicist, et al., 2003

"It is a standing vice of geophysics not to argue against unpalatable facts and arguments but simply to ignore them and carry on as if they did not exist." -- Peter Fellgett, physicist, 2003

"Yet, even with the deepest mines, we observe only the top few kilometers of the Earth, and we might rightly be skeptical about extrapolating the observed temperature increase far into the deep interior." -- Bruce A. Bolt, seismologist, 1982

"The interior of the Earth is a problem at once fascinating and baffling, as one may easily judge by the vast literature and the few established facts concerning it." -- A. Francis Birch, geophysicist, 1952

What on EARTH does that have to do with this?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7422245/
 
Upvote 0
S

Steezie

Guest
Upvote 0

Psudopod

Godspeed, Spacebat
Apr 11, 2006
3,015
164
Bath
✟26,638.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
In Relationship
Originally Posted by Steezie http://www.christianforums.com/t7425379/#post53747542
Mars' thin atmosphere doesnt have enough CO2 to effectively trap CO2 and raise the temperature.
So a 95% CO2 atmosphere isn't enough but a 0.038% CO2 atmosphere is?

How does that math work?


Inverse square law buddy, inverse square law! Basically, the amount of sunlight reaching Mars is much less than Earth, so there is less heat for the CO2 to radiate back to the surface. Really, this is basic physics.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟26,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Inverse square law buddy, inverse square law! Basically, the amount of sunlight reaching Mars is much less than Earth, so there is less heat for the CO2 to radiate back to the surface. Really, this is basic physics.
Then you concede that the Sun controls the climate and not CO2.
 
Upvote 0

Psudopod

Godspeed, Spacebat
Apr 11, 2006
3,015
164
Bath
✟26,638.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
In Relationship
Originally Posted by Psudopod http://www.christianforums.com/t7425379-2/#post53750092
Inverse square law buddy, inverse square law! Basically, the amount of sunlight reaching Mars is much less than Earth, so there is less heat for the CO2 to radiate back to the surface. Really, this is basic physics.
Then you concede that the Sun controls the climate and not CO2.


No. Climate’s a bit more complicated than that. However, it doesn’t matter how much CO2 there is if there is little heat to radiate back to the surface, which is why Mars is much colder than Earth (Mar’s atmosphere is also very rarefied compared to the Earth’s.) Sunlight is a factor in climate, but not the sole one.
 
Upvote 0