Why worry about global warming? (2)

[RickG]

I just wanted to tell atheists here that I'm a Christian and I'm embarrassed to hear fellow Christians talking like this. There are many fine Sydney Anglican Christian ministers and even bible college lecturers that take global warming very seriously; and most Sydney Anglicans are Theistic Evolutionists. They accept that God made the world through normal cosmological models, and that the peer-reviewed science has much to say about the world.

I just wanted to say I am a Christian as well, and like you, I am very embarrassed at the behavior of those Christians who without any knowledge of climate science seem to assert that they are more knowledgeable in the area than the experts. Ignorance of climate science and what the peer review literature reveals is nothing to be ashamed of. Willful ignorance and denial without fairly evaluating that literature and the facts is shameful, especially when that person professes to be knowledgeable in the area.

God bless.

 

[RickG]

I am talking about climate models that go back, say to a time that was millions of years ago. I am also talking about trusting God. Knowing how it ends, no believer has real worries.
Or relevant to the creation debate, or the future or morals..etc etc... so?

They are not models in the sense you probably think of. Paleoclimates (past climates) are constructed from many various proxy's which are quite valid. In other words, "real data".

Well, if you don't, fine, then whatever you claim doesn't matter much to this forum area I guess.

Considering that this particular Forum (Physical & Life Sciences), and particularly this thread (Why worry about global warming); I would say what is said in this thread does matter.
[/quote]

 

[dad]

They are not models in the sense you probably think of. Paleoclimates (past climates) are constructed from many various proxy's which are quite valid. In other words, "real data".

False. Let's see you show the basis for such a claim. Yes the pre flood world and near flood times were different...so? Nothing to do with anything you suggest.

 

[eclipsenow]

A hundred? Why stop there? How about universities using power? How about cities? How about toys? How about electronics? How about vacations by car or plane? How about military? How about any of a million ways sin manifests itself and stinks up the world? Why would we focus on some you chose, and the ways you claim we can save ourselves from them?

You're confusing the categories between personal sin concerns I can pray about and societal legislative concerns I must think and vote about.

If you are my neighbour and have a bad temper, I might try praying for you. If you are my neighbour and throw toxic waste into my yard that threatens my kids, I might try talking with you about it, and then if that fails, call the cops! Then the cops would appeal to environmental legislation in carrying out their charge and ultimately the sentence and judgement.

But we don't have effective climate legislation yet. This conversation is about the reality of the climate situation, the morality of our requirement to address it, and scientific basis of how to replace coal fired power. Even if global warming were a hoax there are a bunch of other reasons to replace coal!

1. It will run out! A society as addicted as ours is to cheap energy would simply collapse if that energy were suddenly ripped away. Food growing and distribution systems would collapse. Our fresh water pumping system would fail first.
2. It poisons people.
3. It poisons the environment, and destroys whole landscapes.



If I ran the world I'd want our governments to discuss how we can fast-track the commercialisation of GenIV nukes that eat nuclear waste. These seem to be, at this stage, the best technology we have for replacing baseload coal fired power. The nuclear waste we have sitting around in cooling ponds could then run the world for 500 years! (Especially in the Integral Fast Reactor GE is working on, a special IFR called the S-PRISM). So there ARE answers to replacing our electricity power source, and this WOULD 'save ourselves', from the worst effects of climate change that is. Not from sin. Of course. If you were rude enough to actually imply that.

The science is telling us about severe climate impacts on the poor. The more global warming gets worse, the more we'll be hurting the poor. 300 thousand people already die each year from global warming. (According to WHO).

But, because you've got no appreciation of the hermeneutics of Genesis, and what it all actually means, you've rejected all sciences associated with an old earth, like climate science, ice core samples going back 800 millennia, and anything 'oldish'. The worst thing is you're trying to sound spiritually superior for your poor reading of the bible!

The distinction between personal sin issues and societal injustice issues is what I was trying to highlight, because that's what this conversation is about. You don't seem able to answer in kind; to address the points actually being discussed! You would fail Year 9 High School debating. I'm beginning to see that you're not interested in an adult debate about a defined topic, but are just foaming at the mouth about anything that pops into your head. The rest of your post was rude, incoherent, and rambling. You're not winning any points with terse one liners that fundamentally fail to address the point.

 

[Phred]

The problem is that there is a huge, huge, huge amount of evidence that the Flood was NOT a world wide flood. We are not talking about a tiny little discrepancy here. At first the evidence comes from people who were Christians trying to prove there was a world wide flood. They found out that Noah's flood was not a world wide flood.

If there was a world wide flood, then everyone alive today would be an ancestor of Noah and that is just not the case. The evidence that God gives us in the DNA indicates otherwise.

See, you can learn.

 

[dad]

You're confusing the categories between personal sin concerns I can pray about and societal legislative concerns I must think and vote about.

If you are my neighbour and have a bad temper, I might try praying for you. If you are my neighbour and throw toxic waste into my yard that threatens my kids, I might try talking with you about it, and then if that fails, call the cops! Then the cops would appeal to environmental legislation in carrying out their charge and ultimately the sentence and judgement.

But we don't have effective climate legislation yet. This conversation is about the reality of the climate situation, the morality of our requirement to address it, and scientific basis of how to replace coal fired power. Even if global warming were a hoax there are a bunch of other reasons to replace coal!

1. It will run out! A society as addicted as ours is to cheap energy would simply collapse if that energy were suddenly ripped away. Food growing and distribution systems would collapse. Our fresh water pumping system would fail first.
2. It poisons people.
3. It poisons the environment, and destroys whole landscapes.



If I ran the world I'd want our governments to discuss how we can fast-track the commercialisation of GenIV nukes that eat nuclear waste. These seem to be, at this stage, the best technology we have for replacing baseload coal fired power. The nuclear waste we have sitting around in cooling ponds could then run the world for 500 years! (Especially in the Integral Fast Reactor GE is working on, a special IFR called the S-PRISM). So there ARE answers to replacing our electricity power source, and this WOULD 'save ourselves', from the worst effects of climate change that is. Not from sin. Of course. If you were rude enough to actually imply that.

The science is telling us about severe climate impacts on the poor. The more global warming gets worse, the more we'll be hurting the poor. 300 thousand people already die each year from global warming. (According to WHO).

But, because you've got no appreciation of the hermeneutics of Genesis, and what it all actually means, you've rejected all sciences associated with an old earth, like climate science, ice core samples going back 800 millennia, and anything 'oldish'. The worst thing is you're trying to sound spiritually superior for your poor reading of the bible!

The distinction between personal sin issues and societal injustice issues is what I was trying to highlight, because that's what this conversation is about. You don't seem able to answer in kind; to address the points actually being discussed! You would fail Year 9 High School debating. I'm beginning to see that you're not interested in an adult debate about a defined topic, but are just foaming at the mouth about anything that pops into your head. The rest of your post was rude, incoherent, and rambling. You're not winning any points with terse one liners that fundamentally fail to address the point.

People make up society. Sin affects people. Sin is the problem. Who wants sinners getting others to sin more the way they prefer, or that suits them? No matter what man does, the problem is too deep and he can never save himself. You talk about coal as bad, yet do not the eco freakos forbid nuclear, so that in the US, coal plants are used like crazy? Reminds me of the devil, he will tempt man to sin, then condemn him for sinning.


The ice likely came after the flood and formed rapidly, you cannot support your 800 milienia claim. The only thing oldish man has is models using the present state and how it is and works. If the past was not as now, all models are garbage. Can you prove the past was the same laws? No.

When man whacks down one mole, another surfaces, and man can never ever whack all the sin moles down! The prophesies you make about the new great white hope to make such a huge difference are pi in the sky hopes. Man as a whole can't win in this sin state. If he makes some new power find, then maybe a nuclear war will wreck the effects...etc etc etc. I don't believe you. Only one hope for man and this planet.

 

[RickG]

you cannot support your 800 milienia claim. The only thing oldish man has is models using the present state and how it is and works. If the past was not as now, all models are garbage. Can you prove the past was the same laws? No.

Oh yes we can.

NOAA Paleoclimatology World Data Centers Vostok Ice Core Data

Check out the many data sources and sets at the above link at the National Climate Data Center. Those are not models you misrepresent, it is real DATA!

If the laws of physics had changed at any time during the past we would not be able to look beyond where that change took place. So far we can look back 4.54 billion years on Earth and 13.7 billion years into the Universe.

You can make all of the wild assertions you want about the laws of physics changing, but you have yet to provide one single thread of evidence to support any of those wild assertions.

Skepticism is a healthy aspect of scientific learning and knowledge. Skepticism looks at all the evidence. Denial ignores all the evidence and even goes as far as to misrepresent what evidence is available. Stating that 800,000 years of paleoclimate data cannot be supported is not skepticism. What does that leave?

 

[RickG]

False. Let's see you show the basis for such a claim. Yes the pre flood world and near flood times were different...so? Nothing to do with anything you suggest.

This is from real data taken from Vostok Ice Cores. It is not a model.

"The latest results from the EPICA core in Antarctica have just been published this week in Science (Siegenthaler et al. and Spahni et al.). This ice core extended the record of Antarctic climate back to maybe 800,000 years, and the first 650,000 years of ice have now been analysed for greenhouse gas concentrations saved in tiny bubbles. The records for CO2, CH4 and N2O both confirm the Vostok records that have been available for a few years now, and extend them over another 4 glacial-interglacial cycles." (Source: realclimate.org)

Link: RealClimate: 650,000 years of greenhouse gas concentrations

Also: Link to actual data sets: NOAA Paleoclimatology World Data Centers Vostok Ice Core Data

 

[eclipsenow]

Hi RickG,
thanks for your posts, but unfortunately 'dad' is a Creationist so nothing you say will convince him about anything prior to the flood of around 8000 years ago. (Or whenever his own personal view of the universe allows him to place it!) Some people just don't respect science, or the hermeneutics of how to read their bibles. I mean, Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2, so how can it be literalistic! But yes, it is literary, it is literature, and requires the reading skills of literate people. Because it has meaning; but not the scientific meaning 'Dad' wants to crash down onto it.

So thanks again for some good data. But it's useless here, sadly.

 

[dad]

Oh yes we can.

NOAA Paleoclimatology World Data Centers Vostok Ice Core Data

Check out the many data sources and sets at the above link at the National Climate Data Center. Those are not models you misrepresent, it is real DATA!

I looked at a few links, I see this in one (http://moraymo.us/2003_Ruddiman+Raymo.pdf) --comments in red

" The Ruddiman and Raymo (2003) Methane-Based Time Scale was developed by tuning the Vostok methane signal to mid-July 30°N insolation.
- The Petit et al. GT4 timescale extends the glaciological timescale of Jouzel et al.
- The Lorius et al. timescale (column 2) has been derived by combining a glaciological model, fully described in Ritz (1992) and an accumulation model in which past accumulation is derived from the temperature record reconstructed from the deuterium isotopic profile (see Lorius et al., 1985).[so the way a so called temperature record was derived apparently was by assuming that the atomic relationships were the same...deuterium...you get this?]

- Sowers et al. correlated the d18O of paleoatmospheric O2 derived from the Vostok 3G and 4G cores, into a record of changes in the d18O of sea water derived from records of the d18O of foraminifera (see Sowers et al., 1993). This timescale is given in column 3.[if there was no sea and a different atmosphere, where would this leave this particular assumption set? If the flood added oceans of water, then that alone disturbs the concept fatally]

- The glaciological timescale of Lorius et al. (1985) has been extended accounting for a linear increase of modern accumulation upstream of Vostok. This Extended Glaciological Timescale (EGT; column 4) is described in Jouzel et al. (1993).
- Jouzel et al. (1996) have used a modified version of EGT (column 4) assuming that this timescale overestimates the increase of age with depth by 12% for gas ages older than 112 ky BP." [so they assume their own timescales are overestimated. cute]


___ Nothing in any links that helps your fantasy past! If you think I missed something, show us in plain English.

If the laws of physics had changed at any time during the past we would not be able to look beyond where that change took place. So far we can look back 4.54 billion years on Earth and 13.7 billion years into the Universe.

This makes no sense. Firstly you look only out the earth window, and fabricate a far away reality based on a belief system. Then you make unsupported claims of old ages. Can you explain why a change in forces and laws would affect some layer or area or space? Seems to me that all would be affected in the near earth realm. Not sure how you look past some imaginary spot where a change happens? Do not atoms exuist in all layers, and in space!? Do not our forces and laws exist in space near earth, as well as the various layers in the ground? Not sure how you claim to look past some particular area??

You can make all of the wild assertions you want about the laws of physics changing, but you have yet to provide one single thread of evidence to support any of those wild assertions

You can make all of the wild assertions you want about the laws of physics being the same, but you have yet to provide one single thread of evidence to support any of those wild assertions. Really. I, on the wonderful winning other hand have all the records and observations on my side.

Skepticism is a healthy aspect of scientific learning and knowledge. Skepticism looks at all the evidence. Denial ignores all the evidence and even goes as far as to misrepresent what evidence is available. Stating that 800,000 years of paleoclimate data cannot be supported is not skepticism. What does that leave?

It can't. Get over it. Busted. Know what that means?

 

[dad]

Hi RickG,
thanks for your posts, but unfortunately 'dad' is a Creationist so nothing you say will convince him about anything prior to the flood of around 8000 years ago. (Or whenever his own personal view of the universe allows him to place it!) Some people just don't respect science, or the hermeneutics of how to read their bibles. I mean, Genesis 1 contradicts Genesis 2, ...

False. Those that think that merely display the known trait of a lack of understanding. By chap 2 all was finished, so one cannot invent some second creation order. As for your precious hermeneutics business, they are overrated tripe and speculation. One cannot hermeneutilosophy the creation of God confirmed by Jesus away. A shorter word for that is "wave"!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Just a reminder of a couple of things...

First, this thread seems to have gone off track a bit from the original post which is about reasons why or why not we should worry about Global Warming; a topic which would have been better suited to Christian Philosophy and Ethics, than here.

That being said, the tread has evolved into a discussion of science, which does belong here.

Now, our rules do state:

Flaming and Harassment
● Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button. Do not report another member out of spite.
● Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian.
● Those who do not adhere to the Statement of Faith are welcome as members and participants in discussions, but you are required to respect these beliefs, even if you do not share them.
● Do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes, making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.
● Respect another member's request to cease personal contact.

Please note the parts which I have highlighted in red.

In following these rules, we can keep discussion civil, yet respect those with whom we disagree.

God bless, and happy posting!

Mark
Staff Supervisor.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

closing this for review - it is generating reports

edit - the thread has undergone a clean up as the flamey posts continued after a mod hat by Mark.

It is still being reviewed




Edit - 11/08/11 - This thread is being reopened. Keep it civil.

 

[RickG]

I looked at a few links, I see this in one (http://moraymo.us/2003_Ruddiman+Raymo.pdf) --comments in red

" The Ruddiman and Raymo (2003) Methane-Based Time Scale was developed by tuning the Vostok methane signal to mid-July 30°N insolation.
- The Petit et al. GT4 timescale extends the glaciological timescale of Jouzel et al.
- The Lorius et al. timescale (column 2) has been derived by combining a glaciological model, fully described in Ritz (1992) and an accumulation model in which past accumulation is derived from the temperature record reconstructed from the deuterium isotopic profile (see Lorius et al., 1985).[so the way a so called temperature record was derived apparently was by assuming that the atomic relationships were the same...deuterium...you get this?]

There is no evidence of atomic structure of any of the known elements or their isotopes ever changing other than unstable radionuclides which are used in radiometric dating. The physics is well known and not disputed in the scientific literature whatsoever.

Entertaining you idea that atomic relationships have changed, it would make no difference at all. What is measured is the ratio of heavy and light isotopes. Change them all you like, those ratios will not change.

- Sowers et al. correlated the d18O of paleoatmospheric O2 derived from the Vostok 3G and 4G cores, into a record of changes in the d18O of sea water derived from records of the d18O of foraminifera (see Sowers et al., 1993). This timescale is given in column 3.[if there was no sea and a different atmosphere, where would this leave this particular assumption set? If the flood added oceans of water, then that alone disturbs the concept fatally]

ROTFLMBO: There was a sea, foraminifera are sea critters. And again, it doesn't matter if the atmosphere was different, there will still be heavy/light oxygen ratio anomalies.

- The glaciological timescale of Lorius et al. (1985) has been extended accounting for a linear increase of modern accumulation upstream of Vostok. This Extended Glaciological Timescale (EGT; column 4) is described in Jouzel et al. (1993).
- Jouzel et al. (1996) have used a modified version of EGT (column 4) assuming that this timescale overestimates the increase of age with depth by 12% for gas ages older than 112 ky BP." [so they assume their own timescales are overestimated. cute]

No, you are misinterpreting what they are saying. They are pointing out an anomaly and showing how that anomaly is corrected. Reading those citations you listed above (Jouzel et al 1993, and 1996) will help clear that misconception up.

God Bless

 

[Greatcloud]

Why Climate Models Are Wrong.mpg - YouTube

The climate models do not consider the effects of clouds on CC and consider them a byprotic of heat/temperature. When in fact they are a major forcing.

Failure of Climate Models - YouTube

Actual data of weather balloon measurements do not agree with the models.

 

[Chalnoth]

Why Climate Models Are Wrong.mpg - YouTube

I'm not going to waste my time with this video right now. But this following statement could use some correction:

The climate models do not consider the effects of clouds on CC and consider them a byprotic of heat/temperature. When in fact they are a major forcing.

This is simply a misunderstanding of what the word "forcing" means. A forcing is a factor which is largely or completely independent of climate but still effects climate. For example, the Sun is a climate forcing, because the Sun's behavior is completely independent of what happens here on Earth. CO2 is also (mostly) a climate forcing because the change in CO2 that we've seen since pre-industrial times has been driven almost entirely by human activity.

Clouds, on the other hand, are not independent of climate. Changes in climate can have a significant effect on cloud cover. This means that clouds cannot be considered a forcing. Instead, clouds are a feedback.

Feedbacks both effect the climate and are effected by the climate in turn. As near as I understand it, at present it is rather difficult to properly calculate the impact of climate change on cloud coverage and the impact of cloud coverage on climate, but the truth is that climate models very accurately reproduce current temperatures without a perfect understanding of this effect, so there's good reason to believe it isn't a dominant effect.

Actual data of weather balloon measurements do not agree with the models.

I call bull pucky on that. Again, not going to waste my time with the video. But provide actual research and I may give it a look.

 

[RickG]

Why Climate Models Are Wrong.mpg - YouTube

The climate models do not consider the effects of clouds on CC and consider them a byprotic of heat/temperature. When in fact they are a major forcing.

I already commented about Roy Spencer in the Climate Model thread where you posted the same video. Clouds are a feedback, not a forcing. Forcings are long term factors that affect climate. Feedbacks are short term and are a result of Forcings, that is why they are called feedbacks.

Failure of Climate Models - YouTube

Actual data of weather balloon measurements do not agree with the models.

There is so much wrong with that video. Holy Cow!

 

[RickG]

Failure of Climate Models - YouTube

Actual data of weather balloon measurements do not agree with the models.

It does when all the data is used instead of the data the video cherry picked. The reason it is called global warming is because it includes the entire planet, not just the low latitudes.

Source: NOAA

And please source the following link which shows what the video left out.

SVS Animation 3817 - Five-Year Average Global Temperature Anomalies from 1880 to 2010

 

[dad]

There is no evidence of atomic structure of any of the known elements or their isotopes ever changing other than unstable radionuclides which are used in radiometric dating. The physics is well known and not disputed in the scientific literature whatsoever.

If what was before was something quite different, then we would not know what to look for. It would not be some imagined and vague change based on assuming present atomic laws far in the past!

Entertaining you idea that atomic relationships have changed, it would make no difference at all. What is measured is the ratio of heavy and light isotopes. Change them all you like, those ratios will not change.

Of course they change. Even in this state, we are getting less parent to daughter ratios! Obviously. I think you mean 'rates'? If there was no decay, persay, praytell what rate would do anything!!??

ROTFLMBO: There was a sea, foraminifera are sea critters. And again, it doesn't matter if the atmosphere was different, there will still be heavy/light oxygen ratio anomalies.

Prove there was oceans as we think of them today? The flood...yes. Ancient smaller seas..yes...so?

No, you are misinterpreting what they are saying. They are pointing out an anomaly and showing how that anomaly is corrected. Reading those citations you listed above (Jouzel et al 1993, and 1996) will help clear that misconception up.

God Bless [/quote] No, without imagined same state long ages, how could they make any claims? So the anomaly is arbitrary and manufactured, no?

 

[dad]

It does when all the data is used instead of the data the video cherry picked. The reason it is called global warming is because it includes the entire planet, not just the low latitudes.




Source: NOAA

And please source the following link which shows what the video left out.

SVS Animation 3817 - Five-Year Average Global Temperature Anomalies from 1880 to 2010

Graphs that go into imaginary years are worthless, really. You can graph out stuff from the last few thousand years. Thus far, and no further. You cannot pass.