Global Warming/Strange Weather Patterns

Well, yes. There are a bunch of folk including our current Administration that dispute that. I can't explain their position. It certainly wouldn't be because they are recieving money from those producing all the CO² would it?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ned, not to sound naive, but HOW do we know 'we are warming the earth' as a result of CO2?If the increase of CO2 leads to a direct increase in earth temperature, then why did the mean surface temperature of the earth DECREASE between 1940 and 1970? (see graph in earlier post 6 - sorry can't get it to link directly to post)The explanation I read on almost every site that attempts to explain this in within the context of global warming theory reads like this:
"there are other climatology factors that may cause temporary cooling - we just don't know all the variables as climatology is extremely comlex."I'm sorry, but as an all around skeptic that type of explanation doesn't sit well with me. If as you say, we KNOW that we are warming the earth because of greenhouse gasses, why don't we know why it cooled during that thirty year period?It's these kinds of inconsistencies that make me question the conclusions I am being presented with about global warming.Here's another question. Will more CO2 in the atmosphere cause MORE cloud cover, or less? Quick answer, we don't know for sure, we don't have the data. But ever computer model (I've heard of) that predicts environmental disaster due to global warming assumes that more CO2 DOES cause more cloud cover.Hey, I'm not saying global warming theory is wrong, I'm saying that data I see used to support global warming theory doesn't make sense to me - and not because I'm not a climatologist, but because of obvious inconsistencies in the way conclusions have been drawn based on the data.I'm not the only one who feel this way Ned. Apparently 17,000 scientists (Oregon Petition) feel that the Kyoto Protocol limiting greenhouse gas emissions was based upon flawed ideas. Read that last line again: So 17,000 scientists don't agree that 'we know CO2 is warming the planet' or that it increased levels of CO2 are detrimental to the environment.Are ALL these people paid shills for the govt and big business? I really have a hard time believing this.This message has been edited by custard to fix all sorts of db errors , 02-27-2005 19:19 AMThis message has been edited by custard, 02-27-2005 19:25 AM

I think we also agree that there are a lot of things going on. From that we would expect variations.Have we agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Have we agreed that human activities are increasing it? Is the increase a large fraction of the background levels?As for the graph I see some difficulties:1) The time frame that we would expect human inputs of CO2 to have an effect are almost exactly the time frame of the graph. In other words we can't see the background. This was already pointed out in post 8 (Message 8) here. If someone picked the post 6 graph over the post 8 graph I would suspect them of trying to mislead me.2) I don't see the estimated cumulative amount of CO2 that we are supposed to have produced. The nature of our economies and use of fossil fuel would suggest to me that a lot of it would be post 1970 but I don't know. If we are superimposing a steady trend on a naturally varing background then we would expect there to be downturns up until the steady trend overwhelms the background variations. The longer term sure suggests that this may be happening.3) The US temperature graph is of little value to me in making any decision at all. All the models that I have seen predict variations in specific areas of the world not that all will increase.As I understand it they do all predict an larger increase in higher latitudes which is exactly what is being seen now. What I don't know is if other explanations or models do the same thing.One other thing that I think we can all get out this:The whole climate issue is complex. We will not get the conclusive answer untill we complete running the experiment. If even the more moderate concerns of those worried about global warming are correct then we will face extreme hardship. If the more wild concerns prove to be true then we face catastrophe.When one is faced with this kind of decision it is useful to take out some insurance. In spite of the doomsayers about the economic difficulties there are a couple of things that seem likely to me. One is that it is certainly not all negative on the economic side. Wasting fossil fuels the way we do here in North America (Canada is particularly bad on a per capita basis) is clearly NOT contributing to our economic well being. The other is that it is only economic and this should prove to be more reversible than watching the streets of Manhatten disappear under the waves. And one thing is a fact: enough warming, human or natural, causes that to happen as a relatively minor cost of the changes. I'll have to have a look at why they signed this. Do you have the reasons or are they what you are already posting. They are, I believe, outnumbered by those who disagree with them. There is, of course, reason to be interested in where the consensus lies but if I want to make up my own mind I have to ignore that and try to examine what is behind their decisions. I agree with you on this. One question, when did they all sign? The evidence has been piling up on this rather quickly in recent years and there have been more and more of the hold-outs recognizing that the most reasonable conclusion is that we are, indeed, toasting ourselves. Then what is the help that it is and what is the evidence for this?This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-27-2005 21:28 AM

Ned, you make some good points. Before I respond to the first few, I want to research my graph a bit more. I was under the impression that it was the same one used by those scientists presenting the Kyoto Protocol conclusions.I would prefer to use the same data they did since this was they data they claimed was compelling enough to reach their conclusions, and because they obviously accepted the validity of the data. I can't say how valid they would find the wikipedia, or any other, graph we use. I'll do some checking on that. I posted the link to the actual petition and what it says. Here is a link that gives an overview of the petition and lists some criticisms of it. Oregon Petition - WikipediaHere is what the Oregon Petition stated: It doesn't go into detail about what those beneficial effects are, but I have read that they relate to increased arable land, higher CO2 levels being beneficial to plants etc. No idea how valid that is, only that the people who signed this petition agreed with the statement.Here is the criteria of the petition (from wikipedia again): Looks like 1997 when the Kyoto Protocol was introduced. Do you know where I could find this evidence? I'm not being snotty and saying the evidence isn't out there, but I haven't found any NEW evidence to bolster the conclusions and predictions of global warming theory. In fact, several predictions that were made HAVE NOT come true:1- the troposphere temperature should be increasing at a greater rate than the surface temperature.Maybe. Depends on the satellite data you look at. But if you look at El Nino as an unusual event, then the atmosphere is actually cooling.2- accelerated rise sea levels.In 1997 they weren't rising any faster than a rate of 18cm/year. The same rate as 1897. The same rate as today. You imply that people who disagree with the conclusions of pro-global warming theory advocates are NOT 'moderate' and seems biased to me. Can you back this up at all? Why wouldn't the folks who signed the Oregon Petition be considered 'moderate?' Could you clarify what criteria you use make this distinction?Finally, I want to make one thing clear to everyone: I believe in conservationism and environmentalism. It's pretty stupid to crap in your own nest; and for years I just accepted that global warming theory was true because so many other people accepted it. Hell I've basically been told this was happening since I was a child.I was shocked to find how little hard data is actually out there to support the conclusions of global warming theory. Quite frankly I feel the same indignation about this that I felt when I realized that I'd been lied to about religion. I don't appreciate anyone manipulating facts in order to manipulate me.If there is actual data that makes a compelling argument for global warming theory, I'm willing to believe it. My point is, I can't FIND it; and what I have found, the data and conclusions that are shaping the political and economic policies of our world, I find are extremely unsatisfying if not plain wrong.This message has been edited by custard, 02-27-2005 22:44 AM

No that isn't what I was saying. It isn't the individuals on either side that I'm talking about. I'm sure that if you picked the weakest of the "pro" global warming camp and the most concerned of the "anti" camp you would find two people with identical views. In fact, more over lap than that. It is when they are asked to come down with a non grey answer that they end up in a camp.What I am saying is: of the various scenarios worried about in the global warming context some are more moderate than others and some less so. I don't think it is possible to rule out the more extreme ones yet. Those extreme cases could result in major ice melting within decades. Major still doesn't mean the whole Antarctic sheet.Remember there are best cases, moderate cases and worst cases. At one extreme (best case) the global warming that has occured is part of a natural cycle and we don't effect it at all and it will within only a few decades swing the other way. The worst case is something like loss of the entire Antarctic ice sheet by 2100 or earlier and a raise in sea levels of 200 feet! Stack that worst case up against any conceivable economic disruption that we would experience by cutting our CO2 emissions.How likely is each of all the various cases? I don't think anyone knows. I don't think any can be ruled out. I never had any idea that you felt any other way.I agree that we should be careful about what we take in as being known and not and, if we believe that an issue is important, we should look at the details.I don't know enough yet (or ever?) to make my own decision on this but the kind of stuff I hear from those who think everything is just fine and dandy smacks of being suspicious. We won't impune anyones motives (other than the current US administration which I consider tainted as hell) but we shouldn't impune the motives of those who have expressed serious concern either.

I absolutely agree. Well I don't have the bias of disbelieving the US govt's motives, but maybe I haven't heard the same rhetoric from that camp as you have. I do believe that both sides of the issue have become highly politicized - we are talking about something that will have a major impact on the world, one way or another - so I am skeptical of unsubstantiated claims from either camp.I don't really agree with your definition of 'moderate' insomuch as it conveniently tips the balance of credibility in one direction. I could just as easily define it as:Best case scenario: increased greenhouse gases are beneficial for plant and animal growthMiddle of the road: global warming will have no impact either wayWorst case: global warming will have a negative impactWhat I'm really curious to investigate are the best case scenario claims that increased greenhouse gases might be beneficial. That REALLY seem weird and contrary to everything I've learned.Overall you made some great points Ned. Now I have lots of stuff to look up.Thanks

I certainly don't agree with your set of possible outcomes. There are a range of different variations within your best case. That is from significant net benefit to very minor.The middle of the road is simply unlikely. If there really is a long term trend in global warming (natural or not) there will be impacts. If the warming is a lot they will be large. The chance of it balencing out in some way seems to be too small to consider.The negative impact case is too much under one umbrella. The worst cases possibilities are simply so very, very much worse than the mildly bad ones that I don't think they can be grouped like that.I found one paper on enhanced plant growth.
Good newsHowever I remember, but can't find, some studies done that suggests that, in the real world, it won't be so rosy at all.Here is one that shows "benefits" but not all of them good.
Publication : USDA ARSThis one suggests that one study may be misleading so care is required.
http://www.bio.uu.nl/.../PDF/2001_Poorter&Perez-Soba_Oec.pdfHere is another overview givein both good and bad news:
http://www.iet.msu.edu/Tox_for_Journ/News%20Items/co2.htm

quote:

---

Quoting experts, Gelbspan says that increased CO2 will force more rapid plant respiration. When that forcing is accompanied by slightly elevated temperatures, the plants will stop growing and their yields will dwindle.

---

and

quote:

---

Of more immediate concern, Teeri says, is that "new research has shown that elevated CO2 in the atmosphere, reduces the nutritional quality of at least some plants. When these lower quality plants are fed to herbivores, the herbivores grow more slowly. When carnivores (and omnivores, including humans) consume these herbivores, the carnivores grow more slowly. We now need to determine to what extent elevated CO2 causes these types of responses in important agricultural plants and animals, most of which have not yet been studied."

---

Now I have a lot more digging to do too. We might as well see what we can learn and I hope others will jump in too.

I just ran across this site, http://www.junkscience.com/, anyone else seen it or know anything about it?This site has all sorts of links to articles (reuters to the economist) it identifies as potentially 'junk science.' Stuff on silicon breast implants, salt, etc. Reminds me of the drudge report site somewhat.What I found interesting was the Kyoto Count UP clock which tries to show in US dollars the amount of money the world has spent due to the regulations of the Kyoto Protocol as well as the potential temperature saving by 2050.The dollar amount spirals up like crazy. At the time I am writing this the clock claims that the world has spent over
US$ 4,884,692,342 for a potential temperature savings by 2050 of a whopping 0.000050663 C.There is also a Global Warming at a Glance page that shows the current global mean temp of the troposphere.Haven't made my mind up about the site yet, but the few articles I did read didn't seem like shameless propaganda to me - but I realize that propaganda is often in the eye of the beholder.I've never heard of the guy who runs the site - Steve Milloy.

Aren't these economic projections based on models, and therefor speculation? After all we can't even predict the stock market in a week; we're supposed to believe economists can predict what a policy will cost us?In short every criticism you applied to the global warming models applies to the economic cost models. And everybody knows that economists just guess, anyway.

I just finished reading the thread in detail, since this has been a very interesting subject to me for a number of years. When I first come her about two years ago, I did a thread on the Bible and changing climate relative to global warming.Interestingly, my debate position on this goes against many of my fellow creationists and against my political conservatism fellows and with mainline science for two reasons.1. Being 70 this year, I've witnessed a year by year increase in cloudiness and varied storm patterns, both in my home state, Wyoming and here in the East. There has been dramatic change, believe me. CF's graph spike certainly says something as to what I've witnessed relative to climate change.2. Reason 2 is that I've followed the Biblical prophecies since a kid and much, I say much is prophesied about weather relative to "latter day" events and the 2nd advent of Jesus, including very extreme drout to the extent that much evaporation will likely occur, cloudiness, burning up of a large proportion of trees and grass, poluting of the waters, et al. Jesus is prophesied to come "with clouds." The sun and moon are to be dimned by one third, rendering the moon as blood red.Now's where I likely get in trouble with all of you people. Imo, as I put all the prophecies together I see what many creationists believe about pre flood, i.e canopy terrarium cloud cover enveloping the entire planet so as to cause the super climate indicated pre flood to return to earth after Jesus returns. Millenial kingdom prophecies inply this super climate as "the plowman overtakes the reaper", et al. Some very harsh weather stuff will, as prophesied, ensue upon the planet, effecting extreme evaporization which will in turn trigger massive earthquakes to the extent that "few men will be left on earth." The oceans will become small and relatively shallow, the valleys rising and the mountains and islands leveling, as both OT prophets and NT prophets including John the revelator prophesies. As a massive amount of water is evaporated the relatively thin ocean plates will break up and rise and the plates under the mountain ranges will shift/sink, shaking the mountains with somewhat of a leveling effect.Revelation prophesies in Revelation 11 a three and a half year period of very extreme God induced drout upon the planet.As with the numerous other fulfilled prophecies, these things are going to come to pass, not necessarily in all the details I have hypothesised relative to the texts, but in the severity as described by the prophets. The good part is that the planet will be saved and a new age of a wonderful world here on earth will come to be with king Jesus running administrating it all. GLOBAL WARMING IS COMING BIGTIME ON PLANET EARTH. Revelation 16, the fourth wrath vial is poured out and men become scorched with heat, i.e, oppressed with extreme hot weather, but not fatal to all.

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

I don't understand how this "superclimate" is supposed to work. From what I've read this "superclimate" sounds like it's just hot and humid, with possibly more atmospheric oxygen.The problem is that those are conditions that can still be found on Earth, like in the tropics. And what we know of hot, humid climates is that they're not perfect zones for human habitation - they're generally the perfect breeding ground for diseases and parasites. I don't understand how the proposed "superclimate" would be at all beneficial. Creationists seem to always skip over that part. So, when we act in time to reverse these startling climatological trends, what will be the effect on your end-times prophecies?

What we have in the tropics is not the same. They are not under constant cloud cover protected from direct sun rays. Having never experienced such a phenomena, there's a lot of unknowns as to specifics. I tend to think there's some credence to the ice cap thing. There's also the possibility of an orbit adjustment due to the "mountain" falling into the ocean, wiping out a third of the ships of that ocean or some other factor. (see Revelation 8:8-10) A third of the creatures in the sea die and a third of it becomes blood red, indicative possibly of some kind of polution algae or something. As to the effect the efforts to reverse the trends, I'm doubtful much will be effected. My son was in China adopting a child and he said the smog there is nearly unbearable in the cities. Little is being done by some of these nations who seem to be exempt from compliance standards.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-01-2005 23:17 AM

---

In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw

and Buz, I note you have never posted at the Bill Moyers' Warning About Fundamenatlists topic. Not that I'm trying to declare you off-topic here, but would your comments be better placed in that other topic? I even sense "POTM" in the air, if you make some comments there. Note this is from the non-admin mode,
Moose{Edited because I was thinking "Preview" and clicked "Submit Now".}This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 03-01-2005 23:54 AM

Then we might propose a shaded greenhouse, or something. I mean it doesn't sound like you're proposing any conditions we couldn't simulate and study in regards to its effect on the human body.But creationists are never specific about how this all works; I was hoping you could comment on it. What specifically about this superclimate makes it so super? They're exempt because they don't have the technology to be compliant, yet.

Neither CF, nor anyone else, has posted anything regarding cloud cover or storm patterns. Out of curiosity, do you have actual data to back that up? Well you and CF certainly seem to agree on that point. But a redundant graph of the surface temperature of the earth and Revelation 16 aside, I'm not seeing much evidence to support your positions. Certainly nothing to counter what I have presented so far.