How's That Global Warming Thing Working for You?

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I've not mentioned rising sea levels. Personally I don't see this as a major issue.

The issue is that we've seen drastic melting (and yes significant recovery) which lend us to conclude that we are seeing higher summer temperatures and lower winter temperatures. The fluctuation to this extent is very recent.

These are techically called "Polar Ice Caps". Look them up.

I dont want to devolve the discussion over a term my friend but in this case the terms are important.

Ice Cap means the fresh water ice over greenland and the antarctica

the Ice that covers the Arctic Sea is not Ice Cap.

the Ice Caps are not melting. if they were we would have rising sea levels.

The ice over the arctic sea (Arctic Sea Ice) did melt drastically in 2007. however it has recorvered dramatically since then.

either way your argument made more sense in 2007. pardon the pun but it no longer holds water....

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Aquila I am proposing that...

1. There is a certain amount of net heat (heat does not equal temperature by the way) on the earth at any given time.
2. That if the glaciers melt then yes they are melting because theres more heat there.
3. That the rest of the world has less heat in it right now.
4. So I ask has the net heat on the earth actually changed?
5. There is no evidence either way about the net heat of the earth and that is really the only thing that we could use to determine the truth on global warming.

So just because some ice is melting over there doesn't mean the temperature isn't dropping 20 degrees over here. Unless the average temperature of all the places weighted together is actually rising then there is no reason to believe that global warming is happening.

To get really technical, your argument that global warming could cause the rest of the earth to be cooler due to ocean currents could actually be reversed. I could just as easily claim that global cooling is happening but due to the oceans and such the warm waters are getting diverted to the poles and melting the ice.

In other words there isn't any real evidence either way. So global warming could be happening or it couldn't. Lets just get most all the evidence to line up before we go jumping to conclusions that it is happening.

One point of clarification my foggy friend.

Not all Glaciers are "melting". And I am speaking about the glaciers that are in retreat.

Kilimanjaro has been in retreat for more than 100 years but not because of temperature rise. Deforestation has led to a drop in average precipitation. That drop has caused Ice loss related to sublimation (ice moving directly to a gas or water vapor stage).

That has nothing at all to do with Global Climate Change. It is the result of Micro-climate change caused by local land use change.

This is the cause of many of the retreating glaciers.

There are many glaciers that are not in retreat but are growing as well. Contrary to the popular myth put forth in the 2007 IPCC report, the Himalayas are not in retreat at all.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Aquila I am proposing that...

1. There is a certain amount of net heat (heat does not equal temperature by the way) on the earth at any given time.
2. That if the glaciers melt then yes they are melting because theres more heat there.
3. That the rest of the world has less heat in it right now.
4. So I ask has the net heat on the earth actually changed?
5. There is no evidence either way about the net heat of the earth and that is really the only thing that we could use to determine the truth on global warming.

So just because some ice is melting over there doesn't mean the temperature isn't dropping 20 degrees over here. Unless the average temperature of all the places weighted together is actually rising then there is no reason to believe that global warming is happening.

Weather isn’t static. If global warming is taking place we’d expect it to be growing warmer in some areas and colder in others – primarily due to cooler oceans and their effect on weather.

To get really technical, your argument that global warming could cause the rest of the earth to be cooler due to ocean currents could actually be reversed. I could just as easily claim that global cooling is happening but due to the oceans and such the warm waters are getting diverted to the poles and melting the ice.

Warm waters aren’t being diverted to the poles. That would require such a drastic reworking of ocean currents it would wreak unimaginable havoc upon global climates. The theory of global warming is far less drastic.

In other words there isn't any real evidence either way. So global warming could be happening or it couldn't. Lets just get most all the evidence to line up before we go jumping to conclusions that it is happening.

I believe we’re seeing a significant enough change in weather patterns in areas where the climate’s balance is most fragile to be concerned.

This is one of those situations where I feel it’s best to be safe than sorry. Besides, being safe will only add to cleaner environments, water, etc. But please note, I don’t think the US is the worst contributor. Nor do I advocate a massive government regulating all things. I believe that understanding climate change and the innovation of private industry can generate solutions that are good for our planet.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Your last sentence brings me into agreement. We should be proactive. However, I fly a lot and I'm always amazed how much of our nation is covered in trees, in spite of 400-500 years of "civilization". We do replenish better than other parts of the world, I'm just not convinced that the world is changing because of us.

I think the majority of the third world nations that are becoming industrial are the biggest polluters and are in need of regulation, if any one should face regulations.

I wouldn't say it all doesn't make sense. I say it explains a lot. It fits the scientific data and the Biblical account. I don't believe science and scripture are irreconcilable. I would say it would be easier to explain what went on with that rib than the holes that 24 hour days in creation present.

If one BELIEVES the Bible, yes, scientific theories are irreconcilable. Face it. Accept it. The Bible plainly reads of a literal week of creation, each creation of supernatural origin… including man and woman. I find it interesting that so many Christians will argue for billions and billions of years, the evolutionary development of animals, but then suddenly shift gears for Adam and Eve. Suddenly they’ll attest that they believe that God made man supernaturally in his image etc.

Frankly, science is entirely unprepared to explain anything regarding creation. Here’s why….

Let’s say God created the entire world and the garden in a literal week. Here we have Adam and Eve living in bliss and all things are good. Now let’s say a scientist goes backward in time in a time machine and he lands in the garden. With all his scientific knowledge he’ll study the flow rates and erosion of the rivers and conclude that these rivers have been flowing for next to 15,000 years. He’ll see the trees of the garden and observation will show that the garden itself must be old enough for the trees to grow to maturity. He might even cut into the tree and count the “tree rings”. Then he’s spot Adam and Eve. Obviously adults. He’s assume that they came from tribe of adults near by. He’s also assume that they had grown to adulthood. However… all of his conclusions would be WRONG. Just a week prior nothing existed.

That the power of Creationism. If God created all things as the Bible states it’s going to have a false appearance of age built in, you can’t get around it. Just looking at a full grown Adam or Eve one sees an appearance of age. So everything science has to say about the matter has to be tossed…. if one believes in the Bible.

The ozone blocks harmful ultraviolet rays from the Sun. The weakened areas and the “holes” in the ozone actually allow these rays to enter into the atmosphere. Once in the atmosphere these rays bounce off the inner atmosphere and the earth. These ultraviolet rays contribute to the heating of our atmosphere. Please note, these holes have appeared over the Polar Regions where the ozone is the thinnest. This is also where we see the greatest temperature discrepancy and considerable ice cap melting. As these ice caps melt, they add cooler waters to the Northern currents of the Pacific and the Atlantic. As the waters cool they influence barometric pressure, which shifts warm fronts and cool fronts. Like massive pieces of a puzzle sliding around the pattern slightly rearranges, but this can have a more serious effect in areas where the climate is at a point of more critical balance.

So if the ultraviolet rays enter through the hole, what keeps them from escaping out?

Also “gases” are of various densities and therefore not all gases are capable of escaping the earth’s atmosphere. Often their density causes them to rise to a point in the atmosphere and accumulate. It is often here that we see additional weakening in the ozone.

I'm talking about the so-called hole, not gases permeating the atmosphere. If there's a hole, why isn't the CO2 simply leaking out? It seems that the different catastrophe theories contradict each other. [/quote]

I think you’re not considering the behavior of gases. The gas would accumulate where atmospheric conditions facilitated its accumulation. The weather is in a constant state of flux so once it’s reached the upper levels of our atmosphere it no doubt is moved around. If it finds its way to one of the “holes” that has been detected it’s not going to just “float out”. It’s going to contribute to the size of the hole as it escapes and breaks it down further.

TO BE CONTINUED...

[Aquila]

CONTINUED...

But the ice is already in the water. We're not adding ice to the ocean. It's sitting in the water already. In fact it formed from the water, not from someone opening a freezer in the sky dropping in ice cubes. And if the ice is melting because the earth is warming, how does this contribute to colder winters? We should be seeing hotter summers and warmer winters, not the extremes of both. That's not even logical.

This plainly shows how little you really understand climate change. Global warming will indeed lead to colder conditions throughout the temperate regions. And as the climate system is attempting to achieve balance you’re going to see more extreme fluctuations.

In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and oh yeah, ….wars around the world.

Please note, the issue isn’t so much the temperature of the melting ice caps, but rather the fact that these are fresh waters. The salinity in the Atlantic moderates temperature. Given enough fresh water the results could be very bad.

Aquila, if you read the article you'll see there weren't a dozen studies pointing to global warming. The number of sources used to build the case was one. I don't recall there being a headline that read that the Bush Admin hid information. It would have been the #1 story for months had they been caught doing such.

You’ll have to Google the Bush administrations misbehaviors in this area. LOL

That seems to be oversimplifying the issue. You mean to say that earth's existence hangs in the balance because of naturally occuring geologic activity bringing it to the brink of disaster and our miniscule contribution pushes it over the ledge?

Yes. There is a fine balance and entropic principles apply. It is entirely possible that our contribution could be the “straw that broke the climate’s back”. I know you scoff… but why take chances? We are called to be stewards of creation. You should know about the discoveries in Greenland’s ice cap. It showed that there are periodic shifts in climate (again relating to the Gulf Stream). These shifts are relatively overnight, given 1 to 3 years and a little ice age could set in for roughly 700 years easy. Climatologists find that the natural shift in climate change, according to their research, is like a switch that is essentially flicked off. The Gulf Stream shuts down and ice age ensues in roughly 1-3 years. Their concern is that this “switch” illustrates a teeter-totter like effect with a critical balance naturally. Man’s contribution, while it may seem small, could flick that switch faster than anticipated.

The so-called evidence is dubious. The perveyors of these studies are agenda-driven with a preconceived outcome. They aren't objective. They weren't "setting aside" a couple of conflicting studies, they were actively attempting to subvert studies that were in conradiction to their claims, seeking to keep the information from going public.

And those on the more “conservative” side are agenda driven also. Both sides are playing politics with the fate of our planet in the balance. One side is right and one side is wrong. However, neither side is considering the question, “What if I’m wrong?” For example, I know for a fact that all the evidence in the world will not get you to budge on this issue because it doesn’t jive with your political perspective. You’d gladly freeze to death in another "little ice age" while proclaiming there’s no such thing as climate change.

Definitely the earth was altered immeasurably as a result of the flood.

Amen.

The only problem with your parallel, Aquila, is there is none. We have a huge story about this arbitor of climate change in the UK systematically manipulating the data. There is no parallel on the other side. Where are the news accounts of such?

And you have geologists and anthropologists who manipulate data for their purposes to…yet you still buy into their theory of evolutionary development and age of the earth, don’t you? I can find a corrupt UPCI preacher right across town here. I guess that means that the doctrine of UPCI can be rejected right? You see my point. Big deal… you’ll find scoundrels on both sides manipulating data. To much money and power is at stake for them to keep their greedy little hands off of it.

[Ferd]

uhm... well....errr....

Originally Posted by Aquila

Weather isn’t static. If global warming is taking place we’d expect it to be growing warmer in some areas and colder in others – primarily due to cooler oceans and their effect on weather.

No we wouldnt necessarily see it colder in some places. We SHOULD see cool areas still cool only not as cool and warm areas hoter. The point of AGW is that there arent cooler oceans because of CO2 Forcing holding greater amounts of heat and thus heating the oceans. bone up on the theory.

There has been a suggestion (debunked) that AGW would cause greater divergence in weather patterns with greater storm frequincy and intensity. That has since failed utterly. The fact is storm intensity happen due to the divergence of temperature between the cool air at the poles and the warm air at the equator. AGW theory suggests that the greatest impact will be warming at the poles. Thus there is LESS divergence between the cool and warm air currents.

Warm waters aren’t being diverted to the poles. That would require such a drastic reworking of ocean currents it would wreak unimaginable havoc upon global climates. The theory of global warming is far less drastic.
Again, this isnt exactly correct. There are natural ocean ocelations that cause shifts in currents. in 2007 there was a natural uptick in warm water flowing toward the Arctic which a main driver of the record melt. By record we can only say a record in the last 30 years because that is the only period we have measured via satalite. There is some anticdotal evidence this also happened in the 1930's.

I believe we’re seeing a significant enough change in weather patterns in areas where the climate’s balance is most fragile to be concerned.
We should always be concened about our impact on the environment however we have not focused on micro impact nearly as much of late to our detriment. There has simply been no proof at all that the current warming trend of the last 30 odd years is more drastic, or warmer than previous warming trends.

This is one of those situations where I feel it’s best to be safe than sorry. Besides, being safe will only add to cleaner environments, water, etc. But please note, I don’t think the US is the worst contributor. Nor do I advocate a massive government regulating all things. I believe that understanding climate change and the innovation of private industry can generate solutions that are good for our planet.

When being safe means taking trillions of dollars out of the economy I am not interested. We certainly need to continue to look for alternative energy sources and especially those that have less polutants. that does not mean we need to spend trillions of dollars proping up third world countries.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Ferd

uhm... well....errr....

Remember, I only have minor concern that man's pollutants are tipping the balance. Also, I believe the innovation of the private industry can best address the issue.

Ferd, what's your take on the following?

Luke 21:10-11
{21:10} Then said he unto them,
Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against
kingdom: {21:11} And great earthquakes shall be in divers
places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and
great signs shall there be from heaven.

We see the following “signs” of the last days…

- Increased war (Nation shall rise against nation)
- Increased geological upheaval (earthquakes)
- Increased drought and heat waves (famines)
- Increased epidemics and pandemics (pestilences)
- Increased atmospheric disturbances, astrological disturbances, and foreboding alignments (fearful sights and great signs from heaven)

We also read…

Luke 21:25-26
{21:25} And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the
moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of
nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
{21:26} Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking
after those things which are coming on the earth: for the
powers of heaven shall be shaken.

Here we read that there will be…

-Increased solar activity (signs in the sun)
-Increased astrological portents of doom (and in the moom, and the stars)
-Increased social unrest (distress of nations, with perplexity)
-Increased oceanic disturbances/storms (sea and the waves roaring)
-Increased stress and anxiety upon all mankind (men’s hearts failing them for fear of all these calamities)
-Increased instability of our atmosphere (powers of the heaven being shaken)

Also we read…

Revelation 16:8-9
{16:8} And the fourth angel poured out his vial
upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men
with fire. {16:9} And men were scorched with great heat,
and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over
these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

Here we read that a portion of God’s wrath is targeted at man through the sun. The sun is given power to scorch man with great heat (global heat waves). Men blaspheme God yet they repent not believing that all things continue as they have since creation. What we call climate change may be the vehicle through which God accomplishes these things

[Aquila]

Rather one believes that man is the cause, thinks that it's natural climate shifting, or thinks it's the wrath of God... (or a combination of all three).... I believe climate change is very real and only a fool would deny it.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Remember, I only have minor concern that man's pollutants are tipping the balance. Also, I believe the innovation of the private industry can best address the issue.

Ferd, what's your take on the following?

Luke 21:10-11
{21:10} Then said he unto them,
Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against
kingdom: {21:11} And great earthquakes shall be in divers
places, and famines, and pestilences; and fearful sights and
great signs shall there be from heaven.

We see the following “signs” of the last days…

- Increased war (Nation shall rise against nation)
- Increased geological upheaval (earthquakes)
- Increased drought and heat waves (famines)
- Increased epidemics and pandemics (pestilences)
- Increased atmospheric disturbances, astrological disturbances, and foreboding alignments (fearful sights and great signs from heaven)

We also read…

Luke 21:25-26
{21:25} And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the
moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of
nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;
{21:26} Men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking
after those things which are coming on the earth: for the
powers of heaven shall be shaken.

Here we read that there will be…

-Increased solar activity (signs in the sun)
-Increased astrological portents of doom (and in the moom, and the stars)
-Increased social unrest (distress of nations, with perplexity)
-Increased oceanic disturbances/storms (sea and the waves roaring)
-Increased stress and anxiety upon all mankind (men’s hearts failing them for fear of all these calamities)
-Increased instability of our atmosphere (powers of the heaven being shaken)

Also we read…

Revelation 16:8-9
{16:8} And the fourth angel poured out his vial
upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men
with fire. {16:9} And men were scorched with great heat,
and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over
these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

Here we read that a portion of God’s wrath is targeted at man through the sun. The sun is given power to scorch man with great heat (global heat waves). Men blaspheme God yet they repent not believing that all things continue as they have since creation. What we call climate change may be the vehicle through which God accomplishes these things

I already answered that question. if these apply to the future, they likely refer to a cooling period that will certainly come in the next few centuries. It may start in the next few years with the sun going back into a Dalton like minimum or it could coinside with the earths move back to a more eliptical path around the sun (cause of the previous several glacial maximums).

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Rather one believes that man is the cause, thinks that it's natural climate shifting, or thinks it's the wrath of God... (or a combination of all three).... I believe climate change is very real and only a fool would deny it.

There is no question that the earth has warmed in the last 30 years by about .5C degrees.

There is no question that the earth has warmed by about .8 degrees over the last 150 years.

The question isnt has the climate sifted. the question is why?

I have not seen a single study that suggested CO2 was the cause that didnt have holes punched into it by very qualified scientists.

I have not seen a single study by a palioclimatologist that has proven this warming is greater than prevous warmings that has not been completly debunked.