Global Warming

[The Barbarian]

I think the majority of discussion so far is not whether the flood happened or not, but whether it was global or regional. Or put differently, encompassed the entire earth or just specific to Noah's world.

We don't know for sure if the Flood story was allegory or an historical event. Nor does it matter. It is true that there was a massive regional flood in the Near East about the right time to have been the basis of the Noah story. On the bottom of the Black Sea are a good number of drowned settlements, so it could have been.

The Bible doesn't say it was worldwide, so that gigantic flood might be the basis of the story. We just don't know.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
Show me your evidence for "95%." Since 83% of all internet statistics are made up, I'd just like to see the data.

As soon as someone shows me what 97% of scientists agree with concerning global warming, you got it.

You'd have to take that up with whoever told you 97%. But we're talking about your number. Do you have anything to support it?

Show me your number and the evidence for it. If the person telling you about 97% won't support it, I'll take the trouble to see if I can find you some supported stats on how many climatologists accept anthropogenic warming. Fair enough?

 

[rambot]

The 97% consensus on global warming

Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

The 97% consensus on global warming

 

[rjs330]

You won't address the question of pumping gigatons of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.



Yet another set of facts you refuse to accept.



"Pandora's Promise" is a documentary that used to be on Netflix, and it may still be there. You should check it out. They even go to a test reactor for the new generation of technology. They manually shut off all cooling and all external power, and then watch as the core starts to heat up. When the core hit its critical temperature the reaction shut itself down and cooled off with zero outside interference.

It contains all the info I have been talking about, if you are interested.

No CO2 is not the monster people claim it is. There are for more environmental natural causes for climate change than man. This planet has been warming since the ice age and since CO2 is less than 1% of gases in the atmosphere it is certainly not a planet killer. And MOST certainly it is not catastrophic. The change began a long time ago and continues as a natural process. It is not vital that we do anything drastic to change our way of life as a preventative because it's natural. We need to do what we've always done and that is adapt to a natural phenomenon. CO2 increases are following planetary changes not causing it. New findings have shown that warming of the waters is incurring before CO2 is increasing. And since C02 is such a small part of the atmosphere it's not the cause. The science is NOT settled.

Important paper strongly suggests man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming


Study: CO2 NOT causing climate change

 

[Speedwell]

It is not vital that we do anything drastic...

Like give in to a dastardly atheistic socialist plot to deny corporate CEOs their God-given right to do what they please with the environment.

 

[Loudmouth]

No CO2 is not the monster people claim it is.

The data shows otherwise.

(c) is both natural and anthropogenic forcings. The model and the observations match, meaning that the model is accurate. When we subtract out the CO2 that humans have added to the atmosphere, we get (a) which shows about a 0.8C increase in temperatures due to the CO2 we have added to the atmosphere.

There are for more environmental natural causes for climate change than man.

Those are part of the data, and the data shows that just those natural causes would not have raised temperatures like we are seeing now.

Important paper strongly suggests man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming


Study: CO2 NOT causing climate change

Watt's Up With That is a science denial site. Try again.

 

[Armoured]

While I am not a believer in AGW, I believe that climate cools and warms naturally. And I know that those of you who think Global Warming will have catastrophic results believe that sea level is going to rise because of the phenomenon of Global Warming.

So...I want to ask why it is that nobody wants to believe there was a real world-wide flood event? Every culture on earth, from the Aboriginal People to Native Americans has a worldwide flood scenario. Then there's the specter of a product we find on the shelves these days "Himalayan Sea Salt". Don't we know that the Himalayan Mountains are rising as a result of the continental shelf being pushed up by another plate?

So again, if Global Warming is going to cause the level of the ocean to rise, and given these other facts, why is a global flood of Biblical proportions so unbelievable?

Because there's no empirical evidence of a Global flood event. There is, however, empirical evidence that AGW is a thing.

 

[RickG]

No CO2 is not the monster people claim it is. There are for more environmental natural causes for climate change than man.

Yes, CO2 is a natural cause for warming. However, since the beginning of the industrial revolution has atmospheric concentration has increased from 280 ppmv to 402 ppmv. Furthermore, we know the amount in the atmosphere is a result from fossil fuels because of its isotopic signature.

This planet has been warming since the ice age and since CO2 is less than 1% of gases in the atmosphere it is certainly not a planet killer.

I'm a retired chemist. Small amounts of compounds in the range of parts per million (ppm) make a huge difference. The current atmospheric content of CO2 is 402 ppm. If the atmosphere contained no CO2 the temp. would be -18 deg C (source: NASA)

And MOST certainly it is not catastrophic. The change began a long time ago and continues as a natural process. It is not vital that we do anything drastic to change our way of life as a preventative because it's natural.

The problems is there are now over 7 billion people on earth with fixed agricultural areas. Yes, it can be catastrophic and there are numerous studies published in the scientific literature outside of climate science demonstrating this.

 

[Loudmouth]

If the atmosphere contained CO2 the temp. would be -18 deg C (source: NASA)

Just in case you didn't already catch it, I think you meant to say "if the atmosphere contained no CO2".

 

[RickG]

Just in case you didn't already catch it, I think you meant to say "if the atmosphere contained no CO2".

Correct, thanks for noticing my typo, I corrected the error. Its know as the black body effect.

 

[Loudmouth]

Correct, thanks for noticing my typo, I corrected the error. Its know as the black body effect.

That reminds me of another science denial myth that I have run across before, which is called the 95% saturation myth. Learning why this myth is wrong really helped me understand the finer points of the greenhouse effect.

Is the CO2 effect saturated?

Long story short, global warming deniers often trot out the fact that at sea level and normal altitudes for humans we find that 95% of the IR radiation is absorbed after passing through relatively small amounts of atmosphere. They then claim that since 95% of the IR radiation is already absorbed, any additional CO2 surely can't make much of a difference.

What they leave out is the black body effect, the surface at which the heat is actually radiated. That surface is the upper troposphere, around 5 miles up if memory serves. At those altitudes the air is thin enough that IR radiation can finally escape, and the temperature of the troposphere at the altitude where IR radiation can escape determines how much heat gets out of Earth's systems. When you increase CO2 you increase the altitude at which IR radiation can escape. The troposphere at higher altitudes is cooler which means less heat gets out.

The final result over time is that the lower atmosphere has to heat up in order to warm the troposphere to the point where there is an equilibrium between heat coming in from the Sun and heat leaving the upper troposphere. That's the greenhouse effect.

 

[RickG]

That reminds me of another science denial myth that I have run across before, which is called the 95% saturation myth. Learning why this myth is wrong really helped me understand the finer points of the greenhouse effect.

Is the CO2 effect saturated?

Long story short, global warming deniers often trot out the fact that at sea level and normal altitudes for humans we find that 95% of the IR radiation is absorbed after passing through relatively small amounts of atmosphere. They then claim that since 95% of the IR radiation is already absorbed, any additional CO2 surely can't make much of a difference.

What they leave out is the black body effect, the surface at which the heat is actually radiated. That surface is the upper troposphere, around 5 miles up if memory serves. At those altitudes the air is thin enough that IR radiation can finally escape, and the temperature of the troposphere at the altitude where IR radiation can escape determines how much heat gets out of Earth's systems. When you increase CO2 you increase the altitude at which IR radiation can escape. The troposphere at higher altitudes is cooler which means less heat gets out.

The final result over time is that the lower atmosphere has to heat up in order to warm the troposphere to the point where there is an equilibrium between heat coming in from the Sun and heat leaving the upper troposphere. That's the greenhouse effect.

Seems like I recall a thread some time back where that was the topic. If it is the one I'm thinking about, it was based on a paper in the 1970s where the author described a saturation point of CO2. As it turns out, the same author published a correction to that very paper a couple of years later citing his mistakes showing where he was wrong. Interestingly enough, that was also the time I was in grad school studying and performing research in climatology. Another erroneous claim was that back in the '70s scientists were claiming a ice age was coming. I can attest from personal experience that that was that that is false. The idea of course stems from the recognition that the current Milankovitch Cycle is entering a cooling stage. That is true, however, were are warming due to CO2 and this is what the science was showing back then. As a side note, during that time I had the privilege of meeting Dr. Tetsuia Fujita, who developed tornado Fujita scale.

 

[Loudmouth]

Another erroneous claim was that back in the '70s scientists were claiming a ice age was coming. I can attest from personal experience that that was that that is false.

If memory serves, there were papers that suggested that the cooling effect due to aerosols from burning fossil fuels (S and N containing aerosols) could counteract the warming effect of increased CO2. Right or wrong, that suggestion has been made largely moot with the advent of cleaner burning technologies that lower smog and acid rain.

As a side note, during that time I had the privilege of meeting Dr. Tetsuia Fujita, who developed tornado Fujita scale.

I give your post an F4!! That is pretty cool.

 

[RickG]

If memory serves, there were papers that suggested that the cooling effect due to aerosols from burning fossil fuels (S and N containing aerosols) could counteract the warming effect of increased CO2. Right or wrong, that suggestion has been made largely moot with the advent of cleaner burning technologies that lower smog and acid rain.

The aerosols did hide the warming 1940 to mid 1970s. The mid 70s was when industries were required to remove aerosols from their waste exhaust. Also, aerosols have a short atmospheric life of only a few weeks or so. I remember very well, streets, buildings, etc. being covered in black soot, the smell of rotten eggs (sulfieds) was always in the air. Lots of respiratory diseases then too.

I give your post an F4!! That is pretty cool.

Funny thing, I remember him saying at the time he had never seen a tornado before. But that's irrelevant as the original Fujita scale was based on damage left at the time and had nothing to do with physically viewing one.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Because there's no empirical evidence of a Global flood event. There is, however, empirical evidence that AGW is a thing.

No, there's not. There's statistics, and peoples' interpretation of them.

But you, as a Catholic, should know that your God does perform miracles, which have no explanation. Jesus did many of them. God did too, with the parting of the Red Sea, the feeding of the Hebrews with manna from heaven, quail and water from rocks. And he could have caused a flood. It says so in your Bible.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, there's not.

It is this type of flat denial that belies the emptiness of the science denier's argument.

But you, as a Catholic, should know that your God does perform miracles, which have no explanation.

We do have an explanation for the geology we see, and that explanation does not include a global flood.

 

[Radrook]

No, there's not. There's statistics, and peoples' interpretation of them.

But you, as a Catholic, should know that your God does perform miracles, which have no explanation. Jesus did many of them. God did too, with the parting of the Red Sea, the feeding of the Hebrews with manna from heaven, quail and water from rocks. And he could have caused a flood. It says so in your Bible.

Amen Brother and God bless! Yes! He did cause a worldwide Flood! Halleluiah! My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ said he did-and that is good enough for me.

(Luke 17:26-30).
And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. Even so it will be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.

 

[rjs330]

Like give in to a dastardly atheistic socialist plot to deny corporate CEOs their God-given right to do what they please with the environment.

Well I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth. Dumping toxic waste into our rivers and streams is not a good thing right? Take a look at places in China where the pollution is so bad people have to wear masks to try keep from breathing in the polluted air. No one is for that. But we humans have a tendency to go to extremes. Take a look at the immigration debate. Some want to ban all Muslims no matter who they are or where they are from. Some want to allow anyone into the country no matter where they are from. While there should be some sense in between. The problem with this whole global warming thing is people want more and more severe restrictions on things that are not necessary nor in the long run will they really help matters. That's what gripes me.

 

[rjs330]

The data shows otherwise.

(c) is both natural and anthropogenic forcings. The model and the observations match, meaning that the model is accurate. When we subtract out the CO2 that humans have added to the atmosphere, we get (a) which shows about a 0.8C increase in temperatures due to the CO2 we have added to the atmosphere.



Those are part of the data, and the data shows that just those natural causes would not have raised temperatures like we are seeing now.



Watt's Up With That is a science denial site. Try again.

It nice to be able to toss any site away as a science denial site when they have shown an opposing science view to yours. I suppose any site that has an opposing view is an anti science site. How about the facts of warming and cooling periods of the earth when there was no CO 2 problem? Including times when the Earth's temperature rise drastically when there was no CO2 issue? How about warming cycles when the Earth's rotation was different or when the sun's activity was higher? There are all kinds of things that occur and have occurred that effect the Earth's temperature. As I pointed out CO2 lags behind temperature increases.
Empirical / Tests Myths - CO2 and Climate Change

New Evidence That Man-Made Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Does Not Cause Global Warming

 

[Speedwell]

Well I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth.

I'm not, but I have heard that line from Christian conservatives often, even in this forum.

Dumping toxic waste into our rivers and streams is not a good thing right? Take a look at places in China where the pollution is so bad people have to wear masks to try keep from breathing in the polluted air. No one is for that.

That's the good news. Despite the money and marching orders from the political right being funneled to "Bible-believing" clergy through the Council for National Policy, conservative Evangelicals, especially the younger ones, are not voting as a bloc on environmental issues any more.