 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
IronSharpensIron
House Cat
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 172
Location: Seoul, Korea
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2462
Location: Salem Oregon
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:12 am Post subject: What this doesn't include is |
 |
|
| The naturally occurring greenhouse products these charts only seem to show the man made effects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1307
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To quote Saturday Night Live's "The Church Lady" from the 1980s...."Isn't that convenient???"  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2462
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 6:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pondering: Have you noticed that the term "Global warming" also seems to include global cooling also. It seems that every change in the weather is blamed on this phenomenon. If there is anything more changeable than the weather please let me know.
The latest seems to be the "day after tomorrow" scenario where because of the loss of salinity the North Atlantic is not warming Europe as much and they have been having harsher winters the last few years. Maybe several centuries of massive glaciation will hold back the ultimate warming of the Earth. We'll see wont we. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6845
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | We'll see wont we. |
I doubt it.
The most likely understanding is that any significant, long-term climate changes will not happen 'overnight'. Chances are pretty good that none of us, or our children, will still be alive to notice any measurable and sustained climate changes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6805
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: |
The most likely understanding is that any significant, long-term climate changes will not happen 'overnight'. Chances are pretty good that none of us, or our children, will still be alive to notice any measurable and sustained climate changes. |
What makes you think this? The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has gone up dramatically over the last two decades, and it is accelerating considerably. China is set to open up like one new coal power plant per week for the next twenty years, and India is predicted to quadruple its oil consumption in the next 40 years. If we don't melt the ice caps, then they sure will.
Have you been to India? One of the things that struck me is how they couldn't care less about the environment. The air in their cities is pure poison. The most mild smog day in Delhi is MUCH worse than the worst smog day I've ever seen in Toronto. They simply don't care at all about what they're doing to their lungs and to the planet.
I wouldn't be surprised if we reach 700 ppm CO2 within 25 years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6845
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Even with 700 ppm in the next 25 years, there is too much planet for those changes to drastically change the climate and sustain that change. Without a major catastrophe as an impetus for major climate change, whatever we do to the environment will be gradual. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1307
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
P#'s... interesting points...
so what is your solution to the problem? The US can't legislate affairs in China or India. Those 2 countries represent about 2/5th of the people on the planet....I'm supposed to ride a bike now so Sidartha gets a satellite dish?
From what I've seen so far, Global warming is all "CATASTROPHY" panic sensationalism warnings...and no REALISTIC solutions that have any chance of actually coming in to being....
just to review,
- I'm not convinced of a causal relationship,
- I am convinced that this is fiscally/politically motiviated,
- I am convinced this is drawing time/attention/resources/money away from ACTUAL threats |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6805
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Even with 700 ppm in the next 25 years, there is too much planet for those changes to drastically change the climate and sustain that change. Without a major catastrophe as an impetus for major climate change, whatever we do to the environment will be gradual. |
But 700 ppm within 25 years could easily mean that our ice caps melt within 50 years. That would cause the global sea levels to rise by like 3 meters, inundating huge parts of the world. This in turn would create literally millions of refugees, which will in turn destabilize regions and cause wars. Throw into the mix the fact that our population will increase from six billion to about eleven billion in the same time, and we have all the makings of a disaster of Biblical proportions.
Among other things, this will have the effect of increasing the number of posts we get in the 'Revelation and End of Times' forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6805
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: | P#'s... interesting points...
so what is your solution to the problem? The US can't legislate affairs in China or India. Those 2 countries represent about 2/5th of the people on the planet....I'm supposed to ride a bike now so Sidartha gets a satellite dish?
From what I've seen so far, Global warming is all "CATASTROPHY" panic sensationalism warnings...and no REALISTIC solutions that have any chance of actually coming in to being....
|
I think that my solution would work. Switch to electric cars on a massive scale. This will kill three birds with one stone: we will stimulate our economy, cut off funding to the Muslim world, and stop climate change. We can get China and India on board, but only if we have the moral high ground of having reduced our emissions first.
| Pondering wrote: |
just to review,
- I'm not convinced of a causal relationship,
|
The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere has gone from 270 to 370 ppm in the past 100 years. We went from 315 to 370 in the past 50 years, and we are accelerating. It is obvious that humans are to blame for this (I hope that you'll at least grant me that). CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Global temperatures are currently the hottest that they've been in the past 600,000 years. I don't think it's much of a leap to see a causal relationship.
| Pondering wrote: |
- I am convinced that this is fiscally/politically motiviated,
|
I don't see the fiscal argument; conventional wisdom says that there is no profit in global warming doom and gloom predictions; everyone seems to think that it will hurt our economies.
As for being political, of course you are right. Global warming is a HIGHLY politicized issue.
| Pondering wrote: |
- I am convinced this is drawing time/attention/resources/money away from ACTUAL threats |
The Pentagon disagrees with you. Did you read the report from the Pentagon (I think it came out last year) saying that climate change is the greatest national security threat facing America? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6845
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P123... you do realize your 'solutions' to global warming will have a devastating impact on the global economy - a direct and real threat to our existence as we know it opposed to the presumed threat which may or may not manifest itself in decades or centuries to come. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1307
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
But 700 ppm within 25 years could easily mean that our ice caps melt within 50 years….. |
Keyword there is “could”…As my daddy used to say IF frogs had wings, they wouldn’t bump their butt when they hopped”….I see a lot of these reports that say “IF” “COULD” and “some-number-less-than-100 % chance”. Provide a repeatable, demonstrable (not computer simulated) example and double-blind scientific study, and I’ll take a step to the right. Otherwise, I still say “Phooey” 
| P1234567890 wrote: |
Among other things, this will have the effect of increasing the number of posts we get in the 'Revelation and End of Times' forum. |
True…true…
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Pondering wrote: |
so what is your solution to the problem? … REALISTIC solutions that have any chance of actually coming in to being....
|
I think that my solution would work. Switch to electric cars on a massive scale....we will stimulate our economy, cut off funding to the Muslim world, and stop climate change. We can get China and India on board.... |
And I would say your falling victim to the belief that what YOU want is generally want OTHERS want…which isn’t true. I’m all for removing the source of Islamist funding…if electric cars do that, great. If giant treadmills that stretch from NY to San Fran and are run by gerbils do that, great. But it’s not going to stop the rising industrialization of 2/5th of the world’s population.
China and India and other developing nations look around and say:
“Hey, we’re just going thru our industrial revolution so we
can have the life you enjoy. Now you say, ‘hold on, not so
fast, you’re killing the planet.’ Well, we’re not going to
stop and there is NOTHING you can do about it…so there.”
To restate my original point: What realistic, achievable solutions are practicable that doesn’t rely on hope or good will:?
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Pondering wrote: |
- I'm not convinced of a causal relationship,
|
The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere has gone from 270 to 370 ppm in the past 100 years. We went from 315 to 370 in the past 50 years, and we are accelerating. |
Agree with the first two part…jury is still out on accelerating…
| P1234567890 wrote: |
It is obvious that humans are to blame for this (I hope that you'll at least grant me that). CO2 is a greenhouse gas. |
It isn’t obvious and I don’t grant you that…I’m not in a state of denial….I’m in a state of skepticism and it is categorically NOT obvious. I will grant that CO2 level may be A factor…but there are others…solar activity levels, natural cycles, Urban sprawl…lots of others. Heck, it might even be radioactive acidic polar bear poop for all we KNOW….we have lots of suggestions, but at this time…no KNOWLEDGE.
| P1234567890 wrote: |
Global temperatures are currently the hottest that they've been in the past 600,000 years. I don't think it's much of a leap to see a causal relationship. |
I see where you’re coming from, but the earth’s atmosphere has had drastically different O2 and CO2 levels over it’s 4 billion year history…it may be the hottest in 600,000, but Don the Weatherman’s records don’t go back that far
Oh…and I do think it’s a leap
| P1234567890 wrote: |
| Pondering wrote: |
- I am convinced that this is fiscally/politically motiviated,
|
I don't see the fiscal argument; conventional wisdom says that there is no profit in global warming doom and gloom predictions; everyone seems to think that it will hurt our economies.
As for being political, of course you are right. Global warming is a HIGHLY politicized issue. |
Researchers get their grant money from somewhere. The grantors often like results to turn out a certain way…..that’s human nature and it doesn’t change.
| P1234567890 wrote: |
| Pondering wrote: |
- I am convinced this is drawing time/attention/resources/money away from ACTUAL threats |
The Pentagon disagrees with you. Did you read the report from the Pentagon (I think it came out last year) saying that climate change is the greatest national security threat facing America? |
No, I’ll try to dig it up.
In other news…there’s dissent among the intelligencia:
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
theseldomscene
Banned
Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Posts: 7817
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pondering wrote: | | As my daddy used to say IF frogs had wings, they wouldn’t bump their butt when they hopped” |
mine would say...'if worms had machine guns...then birds wouldn't mess with them would they?'....
eveything else i agree with p38... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6805
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: |
But 700 ppm within 25 years could easily mean that our ice caps melt within 50 years….. |
Keyword there is “could”…As my daddy used to say IF frogs had wings, they wouldn’t bump their butt when they hopped”….I see a lot of these reports that say “IF” “COULD” and “some-number-less-than-100 % chance”. Provide a repeatable, demonstrable (not computer simulated) example and double-blind scientific study, and I’ll take a step to the right. Otherwise, I still say “Phooey”
|
In other words, the only thing which would convince you is if you live to see the ice caps melt and civilization destroyed, then get into a time machine, and go back to report to yourself...
There is no 100%, and there won't be until AFTER the ice caps have melted. This is a physical science we're talking about. Even worse, we're talking about a massive chaotic system with trillions of variables. All we can do is make our best guess, and the scientific community's best guess is that global warming is happening. The vast majority of climate scientists agree. They're the guys who know best; why are you so skeptical towards them?
| Pondering wrote: |
And I would say your falling victim to the belief that what YOU want is generally want OTHERS want…which isn’t true.
|
The masses are highly manipulatable. Put Brad Pitt into an electric car, and next thing you know everyone will want one. Climatology may not be an exact science, but advertising sure is. With even a semi-decent product, a good ad firm can work miracles.
| Pondering wrote: |
I’m all for removing the source of Islamist funding…if electric cars do that, great. If giant treadmills that stretch from NY to San Fran and are run by gerbils do that, great. But it’s not going to stop the rising industrialization of 2/5th of the world’s population.
|
We don't actually have to stop their rising industrialization. According to the theory of ecological footprints, there literally aren't enough resources on the planet to let them industrialize. The only way they can get their hands on resources is to take them away from us.
| Pondering wrote: |
China and India and other developing nations look around and say:
“Hey, we’re just going thru our industrial revolution so we
can have the life you enjoy. Now you say, ‘hold on, not so
fast, you’re killing the planet.’ Well, we’re not going to
stop and there is NOTHING you can do about it…so there.”
To restate my original point: What realistic, achievable solutions are practicable that doesn’t rely on hope or good will:?
|
Something like 40% of Indians living in big cities have chronic respiratory problems because of their outrageous smog levels. For example, living in Delhi is equivalent to smoking 30 - 40 cigarettes per day. With the correct propaganda and targeted advertising, public opinion there could be swayed towards electric vehicles as well. The same goes for China.
Barring that, we could use sanctions or even force to save the planet. If imaginary WMDs were a good enough reason for attacking Iraq, then I would argue that imaginary melting ice caps are a good enough reason for attacking Beijing or Delhi. If we put a carrier group into the gulf and intercepted every single tanker leaving it, then what could they possibly do about it? The West has the military resources to make sure that the taps are turned off and that nobody gets any more oil.
| Pondering wrote: |
| P1234567890 wrote: |
The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere has gone from 270 to 370 ppm in the past 100 years. We went from 315 to 370 in the past 50 years, and we are accelerating. |
Agree with the first two part…jury is still out on accelerating…
|
270 to 315 in the first fifty years of that period is 45 ppm. 315 to 370 ppm in the next fifty years is 55 ppm. And every day since we have been burning more oil and coal than the day before. You don't think that the rate of CO2 increase is increasing???
| Pondering wrote: |
| P1234567890 wrote: |
It is obvious that humans are to blame for this (I hope that you'll at least grant me that). CO2 is a greenhouse gas. |
It isn’t obvious and I don’t grant you that…I’m not in a state of denial….I’m in a state of skepticism and it is categorically NOT obvious.
|
During the past 600,000 years the atmospheric concentration of CO2 fluctuated a lot, but it NEVER exceeded 300 ppm. Then humans start burning oil and coal like there's no tomorrow, and in 100 years, the concentration is suddenly just shy of 400 ppm. Where do YOU think those extra 75 ppm (multiplied by the entire volume of our atmosphere) came from?
The obvious scientific hypothesis is that it came from human activity. If you've got a more convincing theory, then I'm all ears.
| Pondering wrote: |
I will grant that CO2 level may be A factor…but there are others…solar activity levels, natural cycles, Urban sprawl…lots of others. Heck, it might even be radioactive acidic polar bear poop for all we KNOW….we have lots of suggestions, but at this time…no KNOWLEDGE.
|
And we probably never will have any KNOWLEDGE. The Earth is such a massively complex system that it will ALWAYS be possible for naysayers to deny global warming. Even after the ice caps melt, there will be people saying that humans had nothing to do with it. There is ALWAYS doubt.
Prior to World War II, there was doubt about what Hitler was going to do. There were PLENTY of naysayers who said that Germany should not be attacked, and if those naysayers would have kept their mouths shut and supported an Allied attack on Germany in 1936 when Germany wasn't yet ready, then the worst aspects of World War II would have been avoided.
It's easy to be a naysayer; there is always doubt about anything in the real world. Taking the right course of action despite doubt is what separates the men from the boys. Of course, you have to be right in the end; the Bush administration's attack on Iraq is a classic example of where what I'm saying is dangerous.
| Pondering wrote: |
I see where you’re coming from, but the earth’s atmosphere has had drastically different O2 and CO2 levels over it’s 4 billion year history…it may be the hottest in 600,000, but Don the Weatherman’s records don’t go back that far
|
I'm not talking about 4 billion years back; I'm only talking about the past half million years or so. We have exact CO2 records for that time, although I admit that I have no idea how the climate scientists know what the temperatures were. That seems like voodoo to me, but hey, they're the experts.
| Pondering wrote: |
No, I’ll try to dig it up.
|
Here, check it out:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
| Pondering wrote: |
Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March. |
I wouldn't take these books too seriously. They are just books and they are not properly peer-reviewed. If these guys had good arguments, then they'd be publishing scientific papers in climate journals. Are they?
Besides, who are you going to trust more, physicists and economists speaking outside of their areas of expertise, or climate scientists, because as I understand things, the vast majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is happening and that humans are largely to blame. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
I think that my solution would work. Switch to electric cars on a massive scale. This will kill three birds with one stone: we will stimulate our economy, cut off funding to the Muslim world, and stop climate change. We can get China and India on board, but only if we have the moral high ground of having reduced our emissions first.
|
The only thing about this electric cars thing that I can see as being a problem is that the electricity fueling these cars is produced from coal.
What I don't know is how much electricity is required, and how emissions from coal plants just to produce electricity for one car compares to the emissions from the same one car (and here I'd like to take into consideration the harvesting costs for both the coal and the oil).
My guess is that the electricity still has less impact on the environment than the oil, but that's all that is, is a guess. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
