Why worry about global warming? (2)

[Upisoft]

No that is not what the graph shows. Again, the blue line is proxy data for the northern hemisphere only, and most of that is for Europe. That is regional. The red line is where instrumental data begins and it is global, not regional. The global average temperature on instruments is warmer than the proxy record of the past 1000 years. The Medieval warm period was not as warm or warmer than it is currently.

So, the graph shows that global temperatures now are greater than mean temperatures in Europe in the past. Did I get it right? Do you say that regional temperatures (you call them "proxy data for the northern hemisphere only, and most of that is for Europe") are global enough to be compared with what you call "global average temperature"? If not then the graph compares apples and pears.

Negative effects to marine ecosystems: (Orr 2005, Fabry 2008, Kroeker 2010)
(Turley 2005), (Miles 2007), (Munday 2010), (Boyce 2010).

I see only speculations, none of these establish cause-effect relationship, only correlation at most.

 

[Upisoft]

So, you copy and pasted without attribution? Nice plagiarism there.

And what? Will they sue me?

That's just a nonsensical criticism. Back here in reality, it turns out that temperatures are strongly correlated over rather large distances. For example, when temperatures go up in Washington, D.C., they also tend to go up in NYC. These correlations mean that yes, you can get pretty accurate estimates of global temperatures based upon spotty temperature records.

Yeah, in plains. If there are mountains however things change quite a bit.

And then there's also the satellite data, which genuinely do measure temperatures across the entire surface of the Earth. Of course, satellite measurements are themselves limited in some respects, but it is simply dishonest to say that they aren't genuine global averages.

How do you think satellites measure the temperature? By analyzing the infrared spectrum? Oh, wait CO2 is capturing infrared spectrum and causing greenhouse effect. I forgot. They shoot mercury termometers from orbit then...

But in the end, our estimates of global temperatures agree, to a high degree of accuracy. And if that isn't enough, we also have other proxies for temperature, such as the melt of glaciers and sea ice, which show strong trends that are clearly a result of warming.

You mean the temperatures calculated by IPCC agree with estimates made by IPCC. They have problems guessing what the weather tomorrow will be, but still their predictions match their calculations. I know few ways this can happen.

So clearly it's perfectly fine to be a genocidal maniac, according to you. I mean, if people die anyway, why not just kill everybody?

Ah, because you can't see how someone can accept death as something you can't escape, you must make a comment that this person is immoral by over-saturation of what was said.

In this very moment thousands of people are dying. What are you doing for them? Nothing, you are reading/answering my post. Therefore by your own definition you think that "it's perfectly fine to be a genocidal maniac". Just saying...

 

[Upisoft]

There already is not enough food in the ocean to support the population we have. We do not even get the good fish in this country. They bid it off the chart in Asia. Even up to $500 for a pound. What we get I can assure you they do not want. There is a reason it cost up to $100 for a good meal in a resturant. Because of the price they pay for that food that they serve there. Well, I am not rich, but I assume it is good food that the rich people pay high prices for.

There is difference between "there is not enough food" and "we can't catch enough food".

 

[RickG]

So, the graph shows that global temperatures now are greater than mean temperatures in Europe in the past. Did I get it right? Do you say that regional temperatures (you call them "proxy data for the northern hemisphere only, and most of that is for Europe") are global enough to be compared with what you call "global average temperature"? If not then the graph compares apples and pears.

No, GAT would be in all likelihood be lower since the southern hemisphere is always cooler than the northern hemisphere. What are you trying to get at?

I see only speculations, none of these establish cause-effect relationship, only correlation at most.

Sounds like a confession that you didn't read any of those papers.

Cause: Most of the CO2 from fossil fuel emissions go into the oceans. CO2 dissolves in water to form carbonic acid. Ocean critters are dependent upon their shells which are composed of calcium carbonate. Carbonic acid dissolves calcium carbonate.

Effect: Its effects have been documented for years and the situation is getting worse. Read the papers I cited instead of regurgitating garbage you can't support.

 

[RickG]

And what? Will they sue me?

That's a possibility, but in reality it only demonstrates that you don't understand what you are C&P ing.

Yeah, in plains. If there are mountains however things change quite a bit.

Temperature trends are shown in anomalies, not absolute temperature. Its about how much it changes, not the difference in temperatures.

How do you think satellites measure the temperature? By analyzing the infrared spectrum? Oh, wait CO2 is capturing infrared spectrum and causing greenhouse effect. I forgot. They shoot mercury termometers from orbit then...

They actually measure the lower troposphere, not surface temperature. The IR absorbed by CO2 is from absorption of shorter wave lengths by the earth and re-emitted back up. Not from the sun down.

You mean the temperatures calculated by IPCC agree with estimates made by IPCC. They have problems guessing what the weather tomorrow will be, but still their predictions match their calculations. I know few ways this can happen.

You mean temperatures measured not calculated and the IPCC has nothing to do with weather predictions. IPCC climate predictions are actually understating what is being observed.

 

[Chalnoth]

I see only speculations, none of these establish cause-effect relationship, only correlation at most.

The cause-effect relationship is easily demonstrated by looking at the details.

First point, nearly all of the increase in CO2 is due to the burning of fossil fuels. This is demonstrated quite easily by comparing the radioactive isotope ratios of the CO2 in the atmosphere. If you doubt this point, let me know, and I'll take a few moments to dig up a source.

Second point, warming due to the greenhouse effect differs from warming due to other sources. In particular, greenhouse warming comes from an increase in how difficult it is for heat to go from the surface to the upper atmosphere. This means that the mechanism for warming the surface is a cooling of the upper atmosphere. With a cooler upper atmosphere, less heat is able to escape the Earth, so the surface warms. So as long as the warmth due to greenhouse gases is ongoing, we expect a cooler upper atmosphere. This cooling of the upper atmosphere is observed. As before, if you doubt this, I'll take a few moments to dig up sources for the two separate claims.

 

[RickG]

The cause-effect relationship is easily demonstrated by looking at the details.

First point, nearly all of the increase in CO2 is due to the burning of fossil fuels. This is demonstrated quite easily by comparing the radioactive isotope ratios of the CO2 in the atmosphere. If you doubt this point, let me know, and I'll take a few moments to dig up a source.

If I may contribute, here's a few. I'm sure there are many more.

Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.

Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.

Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79.

And some really good discussion here: RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

 

[dad]

Three questions to you dad.

I. Do you believe global warming is happening.
2. If global warming is occurring, is man partly responsible?
3. Is global warming a threat to future generations?

1===yes

2===yes

3===no


Sin was the threat, and as Christmas nears it is a good time to remember that we were sent a savior. Even if the devil and the demons chirped in to warm the earth, God will take care of it. Big time. Relax.

 

[RickG]

Originally Posted by RickG

Three questions to you dad.

I. Do you believe global warming is happening.
2. If global warming is occurring, is man partly responsible?
3. Is global warming a threat to future generations?
​

1===yes

2===yes

3===no


Sin was the threat, and as Christmas nears it is a good time to remember that we were sent a savior. Even if the devil and the demons chirped in to warm the earth, God will take care of it. Big time. Relax.

Well, here's another reason to be concerned. You and I won't be affected much, but our children and grandchildren will.

NASA: Climate Change May Bring Big Ecosystem Changes - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

 

[dad]

Well, here's another reason to be concerned. You and I won't be affected much, but our children and grandchildren will.

NASA: Climate Change May Bring Big Ecosystem Changes - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Nonsense. No reason at all for anyone trusting God to be concerned. Really. Relax. Be happy. Live, love. Enjoy yourself, it is later than you think. God already foretold the end time weather. The water is fine where believers are going. Weather too. Very fine. The storm that is coming on the earth below will blow over. ALL trees and grass will be destroyed, forget your fear monger map. Why would I listen to man's silly predictions when God has already spoken?

 

[Chalnoth]

Nonsense. No reason at all for anyone trusting God to be concerned. Really. Relax. Be happy. Live, love. Enjoy yourself, it is later than you think. God already foretold the end time weather. The water is fine where believers are going. Weather too. Very fine. The storm that is coming on the earth below will blow over. ALL trees and grass will be destroyed, forget your fear monger map. Why would I listen to man's silly predictions when God has already spoken?

So, it's okay to ruin the entire Earth just because you think you go off to happy land when you die?

 

[dad]

So, it's okay to ruin the entire Earth just because you think you go off to happy land when you die?

In no way is believing man's prophesies of doom over God's accurate future statements ruining anything. Stop fear mongering.

 

[Jazer]

So, it's okay to ruin the entire Earth just because you think you go off to happy land when you die?

God will destroy those who destroy the Earth. So it is like a test. We have a river here that they have been removing some small dams that were built 100 years ago. The EPA feels the river will be a lot more healthy without them. So there are things we can do to help cleanse the environment.

 

[dad]

God will destroy those who destroy the Earth. So it is like a test. We have a river here that they have been removing some small dams that were built 100 years ago. The EPA feels the river will be a lot more healthy without them. So there are things we can do to help cleanse the environment.

The context of the verse you allude to, Rev 11:18 has to do with a certain time in the very end. In no way is it global warming nonsense.


"Destroy them which destroy the earth.
All the authors, fomenters, and encouragers of bloody wars. "
Revelation - Chapter 11 - Adam Clarke Commentary on StudyLight.org


"And shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. That is, all who have, in their conquests, spread desolation over the earth; and who have persecuted the righteous, and all who have done injustice and wrong to any class of men. Compare See Barnes "Revelation 20:13", seq."
Revelation - Chapter 11 - Barnes' Notes on the New Testament on StudyLight.org



"[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]And shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth;
or "corrupt it"; meaning antichrist and his followers; who destroy the bodies, souls, and estates of men, and not only the inhabitants of the earth, but even the earth itself; for through that laziness and idleness which they spread wherever they come, a fruitful country is turned into barrenness; who corrupt the minds of men with false doctrine, idolatry, and superstition, and the bodies of women and men with all uncleanness and filthiness, with fornication, sodomy… (Revelation 19:2) ;"

Revelation - Chapter 11 - Verse 18 - The New John Gill Exposition of the Entire Bible on StudyLight.org

Some people think that recycling the wrong way makes you a destroyer of the earth
[/FONT]

 

[Chalnoth]

In no way is believing man's prophesies of doom over God's accurate future statements ruining anything. Stop fear mongering.

I see. So you'd rather believe your strange interpretation of a book written around 2000 years ago over your lying eyes.

 

[Chalnoth]

God will destroy those who destroy the Earth.

Actually, it is overwhelmingly people in the poorer nations that will feel the nastiest effects from global warming, while it is the richer nations that are the primary causes of it.

 

[dad]

Actually, it is overwhelmingly people in the poorer nations that will feel the nastiest effects from global warming, while it is the richer nations that are the primary causes of it.

Rich nations like China?

 

[dad]

I see. So you'd rather believe your strange interpretation of a book written around 2000 years ago over your lying eyes.

No idea what this gibberish is supposed to mean. Of course the proven and already mostly fulfilled bible is something I believe regarding the future science knows nothing about.

With all of the trees and grass one day to be destroyed, the stars fall from the sky, and the sun and moon to go dark, and all mountains leveled, and all waters, salt and fresh turned into blood...etc...why worry about silly chicken little false prophesies of doom from know nothing so called science??? They are a fraud.

 

[Chalnoth]

Rich nations like China?

The US has emitted far, far more greenhouse gases than China. It is only very recently that China is starting to overtake the US, and then only because they actually are becoming rich.

 

[dad]

The US has emitted far, far more greenhouse gases than China. It is only very recently that China is starting to overtake the US, and then only because they actually are becoming rich.

So if we make 4500 dollars a year or whatever we are 'rich' now? Consider greenhouse gas "sin gas"!! The idea that one can punish sinners and tax sin to death is foolish. Man cannot save himself. How did global warming advocates, or recycling save the tens of thousands of kids and women killed in Iraq? Hiroshima? Anywhere at all!?

Come on now, let's get honest.