It's Over-- We've Lost

[Vort]

No, it's about the weather. Climate change is real.

 

No, it's about power and control. Of course climate change is "real". It's also a permanent fixture of our climate. Saying climate change is real is much different from saying that we should make a bunch of laws to prohibit certain behaviors, but the global warming crowd insists the two are identical.

[Guest]

No, it's about the weather. Climate change is real. Industrial impact on the weather is real. And the fact that it's taken this long for an American President to attempt to do something about it is just plain sad.

 

 

Climate does not equal Weather.  They are two different things.

 

And it didn't take this American President to do something about being a "Good Steward of the Earth".  All Judeo-Christian Denominations teach it to primary children.  The EPA was established in 1970 and Epcot was built in 1982.  And that's just a small subset of it.

 

 

 

No, it's about power and control. Of course climate change is "real". It's also a permanent fixture of our climate. Saying climate change is real is much different from saying that we should make a bunch of laws to prohibit certain behaviors, but the global warming crowd insists the two are identical.

 

Yes, it is completely about power and control.  They've changed the slogan over the years - Global Cooling back in the 70's, Acid Rain in the 80's, El Nino in the 90's, Global Warming in the 2000's, and Climate Change today.  It just so happens that with the advent of the Internet, people started to get swayed by 30-second sound bites and calling it science without paying any attention at all to the wizard behind the curtain.  Sometimes I feel blessed that I was born in an age where we actually had to dig up information...

Edited December 2, 2015 by anatess

[Guest]

No, it's about the weather. Climate change is real. Industrial impact on the weather is real. And the fact that it's taken this long for an American President to attempt to do something about it is just plain sad.

 

Then maybe you can explain the science to us.  How exactly does CO2 allow heat in but it blocks it from going out?

 

Then, what are the numbers involved that prove global warming is man-made?  What are those sources of those numbers?

[Vort]

 

Then maybe you can explain the science to us.  How exactly does CO2 allow heat in but it blocks it from going out?

 

CO₂ absorbs many infrared wavelengths. If you shine sunlight through a perfectly insulated, perfectly clear container full of nitrogen and oxygen (the primary components of air), the gas will not heat up very much. If you shine sunlight through the same container filled with carbon dioxide, the gas will heat as it absorbs some of the infrared radiation.

 

In short, the more carbon dioxide there is in the air, the more heat from sunlight is absorbed. Given the very low prevalence of CO₂ and the high absorption of land masses and such, this has traditionally been thought to be a very minor contributor to temperature. But as CO2 concentrations increase, it becomes a more important factor.

 

Then, what are the numbers involved that prove global warming is man-made?  What are those sources of those numbers?

 

I have asked this question for years. The most honest answer I have ever received is, "The numbers are too complex. You wouldn't understand them." I consider that a dishonest dodge, but it is honestly the most honest (or least dishonest) ansewr I have gotten.

[Guest]

Vort, it was a test question.  I found that most who believe in anthropogenic global warming don't even know the science behind it.  Now, he's going to just come on here and say he knew all along.  Who knows now if he ever did?

 

Beyond that, what you've written doesn't address the second half of the question.  Please, let's see if he knows.

Your explanation, while correct, wouldn't cause global warming on its own.  I'll explain why if Godless ever responds.

 

And he probably doesn't have the answer to the second question.  Or he's just now educating himself on the topic.

 

As a hint, the correct answer to the second question would actually support their position, but not in the way they hope.  This is why we know it is about power rather than climate.

 

What's laughable is the continued use of the analogy of a blanket, which traps heat via a different method and would not even make sense.

Edited December 2, 2015 by Guest

[Guest Godless]

Beyond that, what you've written doesn't address the second half of the question. Please, let's see if he knows.

Your explanation, while correct, wouldn't cause global warming on its own. I'll explain why if Godless ever responds.

And he probably doesn't have the answer to the second question. Or he's just now educating himself on the topic.

Knowing the science (and I'll admit I'm no expert) and presenting it in a way that you'll accept as unbiased are two very different things. For instance, I can tell you without any last minute research that the average temperature of the earth has increased since the industrial revolution, but it'll take time for me to present hard data to back that up. And since my time of pretending to work is finished and my time to see my family is here, that project will have to wait until morning. Sorry.

[estradling75]

Knowing the science (and I'll admit I'm no expert) and presenting it in a way that you'll accept as unbiased are two very different things. For instance, I can tell you without any last minute research that the average temperature of the earth has increased since the industrial revolution, but it'll take time for me to present hard data to back that up. And since my time of pretending to work is finished and my time to see my family is here, that project will have to wait until morning. Sorry.

 

Even  if you did pull together the facts... You would need to deal with the plain scientific fact that the Earth has gone from Ice Age to Ice Age in it's scientifically proven history.  And that we are now in between Ice Ages were we can expect the temperatures to rise... Until we start heading back into the next one.  The time frame of human industrialization is but a blink of an eye on that scale.  So the burden is proving that we are making it go faster... and more importantly proving that we could/should stop the scientifically proven natural cycle of the earth.

[cdowis]

Unless you have some documentation to back this up, I have a very hard time taking it seriously.

 

Follow the House science committee hearings on this issue.  It is interesting that NOAA refuses to turn over personal correspondence among the scientists, so I am have a hard time taking the conclusions of NOAA seriousuly.  Do a google on "noaa supoena".

 

 

No, it's about the weather. Climate change is real.

Yep, in my town It rained  and was cold, and two days later it was warm and sunny.  Climate does indeed change.  Now what  happened to "global warming"?????

 

Industrial impact on the weather is real. And the fact that it's taken this long for an American President to attempt to do something about it is just plain sad.

 

It is also very sad that the chief meteorologist for France was fired because he was a skeptic.  Google "france meteorologist".  

 

Now tell us again that this is science and has nothing to do with politics.

 

Now you wanted evidence.  Perhaps this will help

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Please read the articles in the footnotes.

Edited December 3, 2015 by cdowis

[Vort]

Another of those pieces of information that global warmers don't want to consider (or have get out among the ignorant rabble that dare to disagree with them):

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/

[Guest]

Knowing the science (and I'll admit I'm no expert) and presenting it in a way that you'll accept as unbiased are two very different things. For instance, I can tell you... that the average temperature of the earth has increased since the industrial revolution...

 

<scratches head>...Apparently you didn't read my post clearly, or you don't know what I mean by "the science" of global warming.  I'm talking about the theoretical background, not the end data.

 

1) How does the heat transfer mechanism work?

2) Why are some gasses  considered "greenhouse" gasses while others are not?  What atomic/molecular property must they have?

3) How is the energy harnessed but not released into space again?  Yet with solids (rocks and plants) will release it back into space?

 

The answers to these questions are decades old scientific theories that are not in dispute.

 

I especially find it interesting whenever I come across an atheist who doesn't know much about science.  It's as if you're accepting things on blind faith... And so many liberals who don't know the science behind it blame conservatives for being anti-science.

 

but it'll take time for me to present hard data to back that up. 

 

No need.  I agree that there has been a small temperature increase since the dawn of the industrial revolution.  That's not in question.  The disagreement is in how much increase and what the cause of that increase is.

 

It is apparent that you cannot provide unbiased information on the actual temperature increase only if your number is outrageously high.  But I can provide you multiple sources where fraud was perpetrated on the part of the alarmists to exaggerate the claims or cover up the lack of evidence (if that even makes sense) of significant warming.  And it is unbiased because it is people on your side of the fence admitting to it.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Guest

[LeSellers]

Another of those pieces of information that global warmers don't want to consider (or have get out among the ignorant rabble that dare to disagree with them):

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/

And, yet another: the average temperature on Venus and on Mars has risen proportionally (compared to Earth's) over the same time frame as the proposed anthropomorphic global warming. I can't find anything about whether or not their temperatures fell during the global cooling hysteria, but I'd guess they did.

Global warming alarmists keep forgetting (purposefully or ignorantly) that the reason we have climate at all, and the reason there has been climate change cycles for millennia is the Sun.

Further, I will start worrying about global warming when the alarmists tell us why we should worry. During past warm period, grape grew in Greenland. Mosquitoes live in the arctic today. Warmer weather increases rainfall. The list of conflicts with the alarmist perspective is long, longer, endless. People have managed to live through a long series of warm periods with cooler periods in between.

Finally, those who worry about greenhouse gases focus on carbon dioxide (even getting the absurd position that CO₂ is a pollutant), and forget that higher levels of carbon dioxide increases plant growth. That means that we will have more food, animals will have more food. And, by that fact, the levels of carbon dioxide will necessarily fall because all that carbon is sequestered in that new plant mass.

Lehi

[Vort]

And, yet another: the average temperature on Venus and on Mars has risen proportionally (compared to Earth's) over the same time frame as the proposed anthropomorphic global warming.

 

Darn Republicans. They can't be content with just ruining Earth; now they have to go ruining other planets, too. I blame Bush.

[zil]

Slightly OT: When Gore (or whoever it was) started selling "carbon credits", my brother came up with an ingenious scheme (he just has too much integrity to implement it):

 

1) Create a website to "reduce your carbon footprint" (for the guilty alarmists) - you send money, the organization behind the site does something like plant a tree for you.

 

2) Create a website to "increase your carbon footprint" (for the militant deniers) - you send money, the organization behind the site does something like burn a tree for you.

 

...do you see where we're going?   One person's "reduce" money is offset by another person's "increase" money, meanwhile my brother doesn't do anything (except manage the sites in such a way as to keep the "purchases" reasonably even, and bank the money, of course).

 

[The scientific discussion may now resume.]

[Guest]

Now you wanted evidence.  Perhaps this will help

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Please read the articles in the footnotes.

 

I liked the "Further Reading" listing the word "Carbonundrums". 

[cdowis]

You are taking this topic very personally, aren't you.

[Guest]

 Hey, I didn't put that word in the Wiki article

[Guest MormonGator]

Darn Republicans. They can't be content with just ruining Earth; now they have to go ruining other planets, too. I blame Bush.

 Last night my waitress over charged me for dinner. I blame Bush. 

[Guest Godless]

<scratches head>...Apparently you didn't read my post clearly, or you don't know what I mean by "the science" of global warming.  I'm talking about the theoretical background, not the end data.

 

1) How does the heat transfer mechanism work?

Infrared energy from the sun is absorbed and then released by the Earth's surface. Greenhouse gases are warmed through conduction by the rising infrared waves.

 

2) Why are some gasses  considered "greenhouse" gasses while others are not?  What atomic/molecular property must they have?

The makeup of the gas must be identical to the infrared wavelengths that they are coming in contact with. I'll admit that I don't know what specific molecular property is required in these gases to make them compatible. 

 

3) How is the energy harnessed but not released into space again?  Yet with solids (rocks and plants) will release it back into space?

It's a thermal effect, like blanket. Radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, and some of it is eventually released back into space. The amount and speed of that release depends on the concentration and types of greenhouse gases. 

 

 

 

I especially find it interesting whenever I come across an atheist who doesn't know much about science.  It's as if you're accepting things on blind faith... And so many liberals who don't know the science behind it blame conservatives for being anti-science.

 

 

I'm not a scientist, but I try my best to keep myself educated as best I can on relevant scientific subjects. On this topic, you caught me a bit off-guard, I'll admit. It's been a while since I've talked climate change and I had a lot to brush up on. And it seems that the assertion that global warming is occurring at a much slower rate than predicted is correct. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about increasing volumes of greenhouse gases. Our quality of life is dependent on the air we breathe. And while global warming may have been overstated, it is a real thing. The science behind its causes is sound even if the trend predictions don't add up. Best to do something about it now before it becomes a problem.

 

 

No need.  I agree that there has been a small temperature increase since the dawn of the industrial revolution.  That's not in question.  The disagreement is in how much increase and what the cause of that increase is.

 

 

Agreed. It's been a busy morning for me, research-wise. I'll concede that my claims on climate change were premature and ill-informed. But I persist that research into man's influence on climate is an important endeavor that shouldn't be put on the back burner. While the extent of our impact on the planet is debatable, the fact that we've made an impact is not. We should identify environmental  threats before it's too late to react to them. 

[Guest]

Agreed. It's been a busy morning for me, research-wise. I'll concede that my claims on climate change were premature and ill-informed. But I persist that research into man's influence on climate is an important endeavor that shouldn't be put on the back burner. While the extent of our impact on the planet is debatable, the fact that we've made an impact is not. We should identify environmental  threats before it's too late to react to them. 

 

An important lesson that most, if not all, Christians teach is STEWARDSHIP.  It's lesson 1 in most churches as the corresponding verses are in Genesis.

 

Just because we don't agree that a government - any government - should dictate to the populous how to be good stewards of the earth through their threats of global catastrophes if we don't destroy capitalism and pay exhorbitant global taxes and change all our lightbulbs and get rid of all our fossil fuels doesn't mean that we are not doing our job as stewards.

 

And no, we don't think we should destroy capitalism because New York and San Francisco with all those millions of people are going to end up in the ocean.  Those people can move... maybe build magnificent energy-efficient condos in Greenland when it finally turns green.  The history of the planet - as spoon-fed to us by progressives - is rooted in evolution.  Creatures have this awesome capacity to adapt and evolve yet these same people are the ones cowering in fear that things will change.

Edited December 3, 2015 by anatess

[Vort]

Those people can move... maybe build magnificent energy-efficient condos in Greenland when it finally turns green.

 

Oh, Greenland is a dreadful place!

It's a place that's never green,

Where there's ice and snow,

And the whale-fishes blow,

And the daylight's seldom seen, brave boys,

The daylight's seldom seen!

 

[Blackmarch]

Then maybe you can explain the science to us.  How exactly does CO2 allow heat in but it blocks it from going out?

 

Then, what are the numbers involved that prove global warming is man-made?  What are those sources of those numbers?

carbon dioxide doesn't transfer infra red very well so it tends to trap it or reflect it back somewhat similar to how greenhouse windows do. artificial sources tend to be automobiles, most cooling systems (mainly autos and fridges), coal and methane using factories. Another chemical that is released with a lot fo these things also tends to bond with high altitude water vapor either before or after its split by solar radiation and basically prevents or reduces the production of ozone in the upper atmosphere. (non artificial sources are volcanoes and methane pockets that are warming up more than in the past). another variable that is problematic is the less plant matter there is on the earth the less the problematic gasses can get processed get turned into something more friendly or put in something that isn't going to be in the high atmosphere.

nothing is conclusively proving that global warming is being caused or solely caused by humans. however we do know that these gases do cause these affects, nasa has had data coming in for the past while that show ocean temperatures are over all increasing over time (miniscule amounts, but the trend has been upward, and not enough reverses to level the trend off or make it go the other way- at least that was situation some years ago).

- as to whether the amount man contributes to the environment makes a difference or not is debatable, the real question is do you want to take that chance? - so in regards to the human variable I tend to support measures that push reductions for artificial sources of those gases, more to err on the safe side than anything else.

that's probably the more longterm view.. the more immediate view shouldn't be concerened as much with warming but rather poisoning.

 

[Guest]

that's probably the more longterm view.. the more immediate view shouldn't be concerened as much with warming but rather poisoning.

 

 

The more immediate view should be concerned with the hearts of people who think that killing another person makes their lives better.  For what good is caring for the environment when we can't even be bothered to care for each other?

Edited December 3, 2015 by anatess

[Guest]

 

Quote

Infrared energy from the sun is absorbed and then released by the Earth's surface. Greenhouse gases are warmed through conduction by the rising infrared waves.

 

Several misconceptions here. Conduction?  Really? Why do people think infrared = heat?

 

 

Quote

The makeup of the gas must be identical to the infrared wavelengths that they are coming in contact with. I'll admit that I don't know what specific molecular property is required in these gases to make them compatible. 

 

There is some truth to this.  But again with the infrared.

 

 

Quote

It's a thermal effect, like blanket. Radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, and some of it is eventually released back into space. The amount and speed of that release depends on the concentration and types of greenhouse gases. 

 

This conflates several ideas that are scientifically incorrect.  And this is where many are misled by the alarmists.  It may be a valid explanation that this is how to explain things to the layperson, but this simplified explanation is so incomplete and inaccurate that it is the very source of how the layperson is misled.

 

 

Quote

I'm not a scientist, but I try my best to keep myself educated as best I can on relevant scientific subjects.

 

My point is that, atheists tend to make fun of theists because we use faith to explain much.  But atheists themselves don’t realize how much they also rely on faith -- often blindly. 

 

As far as the corrections... There is a LOT to correct.  That may take several posts.   I'll try to organize some things from beginner to advanced.  Maybe I'll start a new thread.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Guest

[Guest Godless]

The more immediate view should be concerned with the hearts of people who think that killing another person makes their lives better.  For what good is caring for the environment when we can't even be bothered to care for each other?

 

Can't we do both?

 

Just because we don't agree that a government - any government - should dictate to the populous how to be good stewards of the earth through their threats of global catastrophes if we don't destroy capitalism and pay exhorbitant global taxes and change all our lightbulbs and get rid of all our fossil fuels doesn't mean that we are not doing our job as stewards.

 

And no, we don't think we should destroy capitalism because New York and San Francisco with all those millions of people are going to end up in the ocean.  Those people can move... maybe build magnificent energy-efficient condos in Greenland when it finally turns green.  The history of the planet - as spoon-fed to us by progressives - is rooted in evolution.  Creatures have this awesome capacity to adapt and evolve yet these same people are the ones cowering in fear that things will change.

 

I don't think anyone (except some fringe environmentalist groups) are calling for an end of capitalism and industry. I would argue that a society can "evolve and adapt" through preventative and reparative measures. That includes our industrial giants (corporations are people after all, right?   ). And yes, it may eventually be concluded that relocation is the best option for our survival, especially if climate change is less man-made than we thought. I see no reason to jump immediately to that solution though.

[Guest Godless]

Now you wanted evidence.  Perhaps this will help

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Please read the articles in the footnotes.

 

In reference to your post, I actually wasn't addressing climate change, but your assertion that Obama is seeking a third term and dreaming of a thousand year Reich. You have yet to substantiate that claim.