Why worry about global warming? (2)

[Chalnoth]

I never said anything about "eternal torture". Do you always read things in that are not there? I believe God is a God of absolute Justice. He scales are perfectly balanced. Some people believe that our suffering is right here in this life. There are hospitals and prisons full of people who suffer. They use to believe that to be sick was to be out of balance with nature. Even there are people that believe in Karma. What comes around goes around. They believe there are universal laws that are a part of nature and the universe we live in. Paul in the Bible talks about sowing and reaping. The seeds you sow are what your going to harvest.

And there you go threatening again. Gotta love it!

 

[Juvenal]

Ok! So now maybe we can get back on topic and actually discuss "Why worry about global warming". What about it folks? Let's start discussing the topic.

Why worry? Let's look at the science.

Positives and negatives of global warming

A copy/paste of an article list from a response website isn't really looking at the science. Not that I've anything against the site, but it's better form to link it directly I think.

About Skeptical Science

The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realise the planet as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove". However, what is causing global warming is a purely scientific question. Skeptical Science removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on the science.​

As ever, Jesse

 

[Juvenal]

Why? It isn't like they had to put the story in there in the first place.

There are good reasons to argue otherwise. A primary purpose of any sacred text is to place what people already know into the approved religious context.

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. — Genesis 6:4, NIV​

Why is there no further detail about these men of renown? Why else, other than because the contemporary audience was already familiar with them. They were widely known, and that fact needed to be tamed by inclusion. As this is the incipit of the biblical flood story, and because we have tales of these demi-gods and men of renown connected to earlier flood stories, it's clear, or should be, that they did have to include the principle story elements.

This would be a good time to point out that the entire flood story, as known to the Babylonians during the Jewish captivity, was recited as part of the yearly religious holidays in Babylon. The authors of the Bible, like their audience, already knew this story.

Nor did they have to explicitly say that it was because of "man's wickedness" (as if that were a valid excuse to kill almost everybody). This supposed lesson is also very consistent with what we see elsewhere in the Bible.

It's as good an excuse as those given earlier. What's interesting to me is how it moves the cause to one that adds to the power of the priesthood by making them moral arbiters, rather than mere shepherds of the sacrificial rites.

As ever, Jesse

 

[RickG]

Positives and negatives of global warming

A copy/paste of an article list from a response website isn't really looking at the science. Not that I've anything against the site, but it's better form to link it directly I think.

About Skeptical Science

The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realise the planet as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove". However, what is causing global warming is a purely scientific question. Skeptical Science removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on the science.​

As ever, Jesse

The links I provide are directly to those specific peer review papers that deal with those arguments cited by Sks. You will note that I did not C&P any of their arguments nor any of their text describing them, nor did I utilize the entire list, all of which in fact do pertain specifically to the topic of this thread. That's the difference, I did point to the science.

 

[Chalnoth]

There are good reasons to argue otherwise. A primary purpose of any sacred text is to place what people already know into the approved religious context.

The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown. — Genesis 6:4, NIV​

Why is there no further detail about these men of renown? Why else, other than because the contemporary audience was already familiar with them. They were widely known, and that fact needed to be tamed by inclusion. As this is the incipit of the biblical flood story, and because we have tales of these demi-gods and men of renown connected to earlier flood stories, it's clear, or should be, that they did have to include the principle story elements.

This would be a good time to point out that the entire flood story, as known to the Babylonians during the Jewish captivity, was recited as part of the yearly religious holidays in Babylon. The authors of the Bible, like their audience, already knew this story.



It's as good an excuse as those given earlier. What's interesting to me is how it moves the cause to one that adds to the power of the priesthood by making them moral arbiters, rather than mere shepherds of the sacrificial rites.

As ever, Jesse

Either way, it is extremely misleading to claim that the story is one of overpopulation. Because that is not the reason written in the Bible.

 

[Juvenal]

Either way, it is extremely misleading to claim that the story is one of overpopulation. Because that is not the reason written in the Bible.

What's misleading is the conventional stance that doesn't acknowledge that the story in the Bible is not original to the Bible, and that it has changed over time. Overpopulation was the message in the original Akkadian myths, as the unity of Allah was the message of the later Muslim myths.

As ever, Jesse

 

[Chalnoth]

What's misleading is the conventional stance that doesn't acknowledge that the story in the Bible is not original to the Bible, and that it has changed over time. Overpopulation was the message in the original Akkadian myths, as the unity of Allah was the message of the later Muslim myths.

As ever, Jesse

But that history is irrelevant to what is taught in the Bible. Sure, it's interesting from a historical perspective. But it doesn't have any bearing on what the Bible itself says.

 

[Juvenal]

The links I provide are directly to those specific peer review papers that deal with those arguments cited by Sks. You will note that I did not C&P any of their arguments nor any of their text describing them, nor did I utilize the entire list, all of which in fact do pertain specifically to the topic of this thread. That's the difference, I did point to the science.

You did use their characterizations, which is how I found the original site. Note, for instance, that the paper by Walter et al.is titled Thermokarst Lakes as a Source of Atmospheric CH4 During the Last Deglaciation but characterized as "Melting of Arctic lakes leading methane bubbling" at Skeptical Science.

Abstract:

Polar ice-core records suggest that an arctic or boreal source was responsible for more than 30% of the large increase in global atmospheric methane (CH4) concentration during deglacial climate warming; however, specific sources of that CH4 are still debated. Here we present an estimate of past CH4 flux during deglaciation from bubbling from thermokarst (thaw) lakes. Based on high rates of CH4 bubbling from contemporary arctic thermokarst lakes, high CH4 production potentials of organic matter from Pleistocene-aged frozen sediments, and estimates of the changing extent of these deposits as thermokarst lakes developed during deglaciation, we find that CH4 bubbling from newly forming thermokarst lakes comprised 33 to 87% of the high-latitude increase in atmospheric methane concentration and, in turn, contributed to the climate warming at the Pleistocene-Holocene transition.​

Note this addresses variations during the Pleistocene leading up to the current Holocene era which began at the end of the last ice age c. 10k ybp. While it arguably has things to say about current deglaciation, neither the title nor the abstract suggest the given characterization. That's an argument to be made from the science, and not the science itself.

As ever, Jesse

 

[Juvenal]

But that history is irrelevant to what is taught in the Bible. Sure, it's interesting from a historical perspective. But it doesn't have any bearing on what the Bible itself says.

The tale told in the Bible would not exist were it not for that history. So I must disagree with you about its relevance, especially for the original audience. If it has less bearing on how moderns read the Bible, that should not reflect on the work of the original authors, but rather on its contemporary readers.

I personally have little interest in fringe interpretations from Biblical literalists. They do not represent the majority of Christianity, and discussions about their idiosyncratic interpretation adds very little to any thoughtful and sober analysis of the story. In fact, they muddy the water, and get in the way.

As ever, Jesse

 

[Chalnoth]

You did use their characterizations, which is how I found the original site. Note, for instance, that the paper by Walter et al.is titled Thermokarst Lakes as a Source of Atmospheric CH4 During the Last Deglaciation but characterized as "Melting of Arctic lakes leading methane bubbling" at Skeptical Science.

Abstract:

Polar ice-core records suggest that an arctic or boreal source was responsible for more than 30% of the large increase in global atmospheric methane (CH4) concentration during deglacial climate warming; however, specific sources of that CH4 are still debated. Here we present an estimate of past CH4 flux during deglaciation from bubbling from thermokarst (thaw) lakes. Based on high rates of CH4 bubbling from contemporary arctic thermokarst lakes, high CH4 production potentials of organic matter from Pleistocene-aged frozen sediments, and estimates of the changing extent of these deposits as thermokarst lakes developed during deglaciation, we find that CH4 bubbling from newly forming thermokarst lakes comprised 33 to 87% of the high-latitude increase in atmospheric methane concentration and, in turn, contributed to the climate warming at the Pleistocene-Holocene transition.​

Note this addresses variations during the Pleistocene leading up to the current Holocene era which began at the end of the last ice age c. 10k ybp. While it arguably has things to say about current deglaciation, neither the title nor the abstract suggest the given characterization. That's an argument to be made from the science, and not the science itself.

As ever, Jesse

Um, this was listed under "negative impacts of warming". That paper is a good reason to believe that this is a negative impact of warming: some warming leads to a significant release of methane from these lakes, resulting in a large positive feedback effect.

 

[RickG]

You did use their characterizations, which is how I found the original site. Note, for instance, that the paper by Walter et al.is titled Thermokarst Lakes as a Source of Atmospheric CH4 During the Last Deglaciation but characterized as "Melting of Arctic lakes leading methane bubbling" at Skeptical Science.

Abstract:

Polar ice-core records suggest that an arctic or boreal source was responsible for more than 30% of the large increase in global atmospheric methane (CH4) concentration during deglacial climate warming; however, specific sources of that CH4 are still debated. Here we present an estimate of past CH4 flux during deglaciation from bubbling from thermokarst (thaw) lakes. Based on high rates of CH4 bubbling from contemporary arctic thermokarst lakes, high CH4 production potentials of organic matter from Pleistocene-aged frozen sediments, and estimates of the changing extent of these deposits as thermokarst lakes developed during deglaciation, we find that CH4 bubbling from newly forming thermokarst lakes comprised 33 to 87% of the high-latitude increase in atmospheric methane concentration and, in turn, contributed to the climate warming at the Pleistocene-Holocene transition.​

Note this addresses variations during the Pleistocene leading up to the current Holocene era which began at the end of the last ice age c. 10k ybp. While it arguably has things to say about current deglaciation, neither the title nor the abstract suggest the given characterization. That's an argument to be made from the science, and not the science itself.

As ever, Jesse

May I suggest reading the entire paper instead of just the abstract and than assuming the content.

"About 500 Gt C remain preserved in the yedoma ice-complex in northeast Siberia (21). If the yedoma territory with its high ice–content permafrost warms more rapidly in the future, as projected (34), ebullition from thermokarst lakes could again become a powerful positive feedback to high-latitude warming, as it appears to have been during deglacial climate warming at the onset of the Holocene. Expansion and formation of yedoma thermokarst lakes in northeast Siberia during the era of satellite observations suggest that this positive feedback is already underway (18). This important source of atmospheric CH4 is not currently considered in climate-change Expansion and formation of yedoma thermokarst lakes in northeast Siberia during the era of satellite observations suggest that this positive feedback is already underway. This important source of atmospheric CH4 is not currently considered in climate-change projections."

 

[Greatcloud]

Why I am not worried about global warming I simply don't believe both Greenland and Antarctica are going to melt any time soon and raise sea levels. This has not proven to be the case for a long time now.

 

[Chalnoth]

Why I am not worried about global warming I simply don't believe both Greenland and Antarctica are going to melt any time soon and raise sea levels. This has not proven to be the case for a long time now.

This perspective makes no sense to me, for a number of reasons.

First, you don't need to melt all of Greenland and Antarctica to have significant sea level rise. If all of Greenland melted, that would be about a 7m sea level rise. But we don't need anywhere near that to have problems: a sea level rise of 1m would be quite severe. And while it is likely to take quite a while to melt all of Greenland, enough can easily melt within our lifetimes to cause serious problems.

Secondly, land ice melt is only a fraction of sea level rise. Currently the largest contribution to sea level rise is thermal expansion.

Finally, do you even care about future generations? Does it matter at all what kind of Earth you are leaving to your children?

 

[Greatcloud]

This perspective makes no sense to me, for a number of reasons.

First, you don't need to melt all of Greenland and Antarctica to have significant sea level rise. If all of Greenland melted, that would be about a 7m sea level rise. But we don't need anywhere near that to have problems: a sea level rise of 1m would be quite severe. And while it is likely to take quite a while to melt all of Greenland, enough can easily melt within our lifetimes to cause serious problems.
I don't believe that Greenland is melting at all prove it to me within our lifetime Chalnoth.
Secondly, land ice melt is only a fraction of sea level rise. Currently the largest contribution to sea level rise is thermal expansion.
Thermal expansion is not global warming
Finally, do you even care about future generations? Does it matter at all what kind of Earth you are leaving to your children?

My children will be just fine Chalnoth and yes I do care.

 

[Chalnoth]

My children will be just fine Chalnoth and yes I do care.

Clearly not. Because you aren't interested in them living in a habitable world.

 

[mzungu]

Clearly not. Because you aren't interested in them living in a habitable world.

I second that

 

[Jazer]

Why I am not worried about global warming I simply don't believe both Greenland and Antarctica are going to melt any time soon and raise sea levels. This has not proven to be the case for a long time now.

Sure no problem as long as you do not have to worry about storm surges like London or high tide like Venice or storm surges like New Orleans. Or live in a small alaska village were the goverment has to move you to higher ground. Or hurricanes like downtown Miami.

 

[Greatcloud]

Jazer that is a natural occurance and has been going on since mankind has existed.

 

[Chalnoth]

Jazer that is a natural occurance and has been going on since mankind has existed.

Going on? Yes. As commonly? No.

 

[mzungu]

Some people have this death wish for our planet simply because they think the sooner the earth is destroyed the sooner they will go to heaven (rapture)! They could of course do all of us a favour and take some kool aid!