Global Warming and Oceans

[Embar Angylwrath]

I didn't say I didn't beleive in god... I said I question the validity of the Christian concept of god.

And I'm glad you brought that up actually. The whole global warming thing (which I don't doubt), purportedly because of the activities of man (which I do doubt and remain unconvinced), is very much like religion. Almost like the Catholic religion. A position is taken and then evidence is interpreted to support that position, just like the Catholic church. People who don't see it the way you do are branded heretics, imbeciles, etc., and you just can't fathom how ANYONE could have a different view.

Yes, people who beleive in global warming caused by man are very much like religious zealots. Thanks for bringing up that analogy.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Freeman Dyson articulates everything I am trying to with much more eloquence. It's a good read.

Jaro - feel free to question Freeman Dyson, although I think he answers some of your questions before you're even aware you have them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 24912.html

[Jarochai Alabaster]

The whole evolution thing (which I don't doubt), except for speciation (which I do doubt and remain unconvinced), is very much like religion. Almost like the Catholic religion. A position is taken and then evidence is interpreted to support that position, just like the Catholic church. People who don't see it the way you do are branded heretics, imbeciles, etc., and you just can't fathom how ANYONE could have a different view.

[Lurker]

A position is taken and then evidence is interpreted to support that position, just like the Catholic church.

Wow, I didn't know the Catholic church had started using the scientific method to test evidence in a peer reviewed and open process.

We've been over this before. The science welcomes and depends on skeptics.

You aren't a skeptic; you are a denier parroting talking points provided by industry shills.

You proved that in this thread. Just like all deniers you cling to what you "believe" and then never, ever, ever alter that belief even when your reasons turn out to be wrong. In this thread alone you went from "Antarctic ice is growing!" to "Oh, I mean the loss is slowing!" to, "it's not 'rigorously proven' why the ice loss is accelerating!!!" The only thing that didn't change was your "belief".

Everyone has noticed that you trot out the same lines over and over, even the most thoroughly debunked denier talking points, and never react to new information. Like the bullshit line about a predicted ice age in the 70's as if that's comparable at all. You used the same line in 2007 and were corrected and here it is used again four years later.

It's really quite pathetic.

[Jarochai Alabaster]

I'll probably read your link later tonight or tomorrow, but I don't expect to be convinced. Comparing Climate Change science with religious dogmatism is completely disingenuous, especially since we both know how the scientific method and the peer-review process work. No matter what you present as "counter evidence," the fact remains that you're arguing against the overwhelming majority of experts in the field in question. The fact also remains that denial of man-made climate change poses a risk to the habitability of our planet - at the very least a risk to our ability to sustain our ever-growing population by way of the erosion of our natural resources (Namely crops and fresh water).

If the models are wrong - if the overwhelming majority of climatologists have somehow misinterpreted their data - then so be it. It's certainly a possibility, but in the same realm of "possibility" that we're wrong about the earth not being the center of the universe or that the Big Bang never occurred. But if we're playing the odds, our best bet is to attempt to curb our impact on the environment. We have literally everything to lose.

[Lurker]

On Dyson, here's a rebuttal of sorts.

I'd also say that when a person has "how do we know the change isn't good?" as part of their argument (not that it isn't a valid question), coupled with denial of the evidence relating to cause, the person loses credibility.

And in his own words, "I know a lot about nuclear weapons and nothing about climate change." I'm sure he was just being coy.

And the bottom line is, Embar has never once altered his "belief" when the reason he gave turned out to be false. Like a true denier.

[Ddrak]

I find things to be quite the opposite of Embar's assertion that climate change is dogmatic. I find very strong parallels between those who attack the science of climate change and those who attacked Galileo's heliocentric theories.

Although there are no specific references in the scriptures and Biblical texts to the position of Earth relative to the Sun or the other planets, according to the Church there were enough "hints" that the Earth was not moving and so it had to be at the center. For example, hadn't Joshua, at one time ordered the Sun to stop over Gibeon? And didn't it stand still for a whole day? (Book of Joshua 10:12-13). Therefore, the clerics argued, the Sun must be moving. Again, in the book of Ecclesiastes, it states (Ecclesiastes 1:5):

"The Sun also riseth and the Sun goeth down and hasteth to his place where he arose";

doesn't that prove the Sun is moving? Also, common sense, they argued, told us the Earth cannot be moving otherwise, wouldn't we be always in a howling gale and maybe get blown away? And then again, if the Earth is moving, why does an object when it's thrown upwards fall back into your hand and not fall behind you? In addition, the accepted geographical layout had Hell in the bowels of the Earth - as evidenced by the fire and brimstone that spewed occasionally from volcanoes - and the Sun, planets and stars circling the Earth on perfect spheres, with God and Heaven beyond. So Copernicus's theory had to be wrong; not only did it contradict the literal text of the Bible, it would upset the accepted geography!

Never mind the science - it was common sense that the Earth was fixed and everything else moved around it!

Dd

[Harlowe]

I didn't say I didn't beleive in god... I said I question the validity of the Christian concept of god.

Thought you might enjoy Andrew Sullivans article, I liked this short article better than Divinity of Doubt...

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com ... ctd-1.html

[Torakus]

The only problem I have with the whole debate is calling global warming anthropogenic. Global average temperature has been increasing since the end of the Pleistocene. Unless human farts started it, then I think the genesis of the warming is something else. I do not doubt however that man has had some (perhaps even significant) affect on the rate of change in the last century and a half. I also have to wonder if all the doom and gloom might be a little over stated. In the half billion years since the Cambrian explosion a great deal more of this planets history has been spent at 25C than down where we are now and life flourished during those times. Besides, both of our coasts need to wiped clean anyway.

[Lurker]

The only problem I have with the whole debate is calling global warming anthropogenic.

I do not doubt however that man has had some (perhaps even significant) affect on the rate of change in the last century and a half.

So, you don't doubt that humans have had an affect (perhaps a significant one) on the rate of warming in the last 150 years, but the only problem you have with the whole debate is that scientists agree with you.

I'm a bit confused by your position.

[Torakus]

I don't like the term anthropogenic. Man's (anthropo) actions are not the genesis (genic) of global warming. We are just speeding it up some.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I don't like the term anthropogenic. Man's (anthropo) actions are not the genesis (genic) of global warming. We are just speeding it up some.

Are we? That's my question. I don't doubt the atmo is warming. It's been warming since we emerged from the last ice age, just like it does after the earth emerges from every ice age. I don't doubt CO2 levels are rising. They, too, have been rising since the last ice age, and they rise as the earth warms (a strong argument for the warming causing CO2 level increases, not CO2 increases causing the warming). For the sake of argument, lets say that CO2 levels do have some sort of impact on the warming of the atmo. Is the human-produced CO2 statitically significant in the warming effect?

I think the trap here is people have accepted the "correlation equals causation" mantra. Because CO2 levels are correlated with a rising atmo, and man produces CO2, man causes atmo warming. But as histroy shows, CO2 is a lagging indicator of global warming. Perhaps there's a feedback loop in there, where CO2 starts as a lagging indicator, but then hits the dreaded "tippining point" where it becomes a driver. However if that is the case, the earth would have cooked itself... yet it always cycles into a cooling period, which so closely tracks solar activity that its undeniable the sun moves the atmo temps, not CO2. Could CO2 have some sort of warming effect? Sure. Does it make a difference when compared to the real driver of atmo warming (the sun), no, I don't think so.

[Lurker]

Denier Lemming says, "Gee, if only the IPCC would consider the sun!"

Do you really think that nobody but you and other deniers has looked to see if we are in a natural cycle or if the sun or earths position is causing the warming? Do you have any idea how stupid and ignorant you look when your argument hinges on only you and other deniers considering that possibility?

I think the trap here is people have accepted the "correlation equals causation" mantra.

CO2 is a lagging indicator and part of a feedback loop in the natural cycle. We aren't in the natural cycle now. CO2 isn't always the main driver but it is the main driver now.

Only the deniers reduce the discussion to a "correlation equals causation" argument. The scientists studying this issue do not. Only the deniers ignore information and cherry pick data and misrepresent the research. Like I said four years ago, you are like a pull-string doll of denier talking points.

Did I mention you are a boring and predictable?

(OMG Ad Hom!)

[Embar Angylwrath]

If CO2 is the main driver now, how is it that with rising CO2 levels the rate of warming has slowed?

[Lurker]

The most likely explanation is that the rise in coal usage has increased the sulfur dioxide content in the stratosphere, acting as a negative driver which blunts some of the effect of CO2. Very similar to the temporary cooling seen after a volcanic eruption.

Or maybe the sun is burning out.

If only there was a group of scientists engaged in peer reviewed research who could look into this.

[Ddrak]

If CO2 is the main driver now, how is it that with rising CO2 levels the rate of warming has slowed?

Where did you get this from? I haven't found anything to show that the long term warming trend has slowed at all, but am interested to see different data.

Here's some reference data on the trend continuing at predicted rates:
An excellent blog post by Grant Foster - a long-term and well respected statistician
Peer reviewed paper on the trend continuing

Dd

[Torakus]

An excellent blog post by Grant Foster - a long-term and well respected statistician
Dd

Well respected statistician, lol. LIES!

[Embar Angylwrath]

If CO2 is the main driver now, how is it that with rising CO2 levels the rate of warming has slowed?

Where did you get this from? I haven't found anything to show that the long term warming trend has slowed at all, but am interested to see different data.

Here's some reference data on the trend continuing at predicted rates:
An excellent blog post by Grant Foster - a long-term and well respected statistician
Peer reviewed paper on the trend continuing

Dd

The slowing of atmo warming is pretty well known. No one knows why its happening. Some say a water vapor decrease is responsible, some say is atmospheric particles from volcanoes and burning of fossil fuels (soot). But the rate of warming has fallen about 20% to 25%.

Kinda funny that implied here is that the more fossil fuel we burn, the slower the warming rate will be....

[Lurker]

A scientist joked as much a few years back, saying that the best response to global warming was to pump polution into the atmosphere.

[Embar Angylwrath]

A scientist joked as much a few years back, saying that the best response to global warming was to pump polution into the atmosphere.

I joke as well. Don't miscontrue my post to advocate an increase in pollution as an atmo tweaking method.