The Dog that Ate Global Warming

[there buster]

Quote:

You *know* that the claim 'it has been cooling in the past decade' is false.

I know that whenever data that contradicts the church of global warming is published, the church and its minions change the subject, and look at other data instead. Or sometimes they just lose it.

As far as warm times being in the distant past:

Quote:

A new 2,000 year long reconstruction of sea surface temperatures (SST) from the Indo-Pacific warm pool (IPWP) suggests that temperatures in the region may have been as warm during the Medieval Warm Period as they are today.

The IPWP is the largest body of warm water in the world, and, as a result, it is the largest source of heat and moisture to the global atmosphere, and an important component of the planet’s climate. Climate models suggest that global mean temperatures are particularly sensitive to sea surface temperatures in the IPWP. Understanding the past history of the region is of great importance for placing current warming trends in a global context.

The study is published in the journal Nature.

Must have been all those Medieval SUVs. Or the enormous "carbon footprints" of the world's population of 400 million or so.

[there buster]

Quote:

Explain Greenland of centuries ago then?

YOu don't understand, bonnie. When the ice cores had a resolution of centuries, and indicated that CO2 increased before global temperatures warmed, they were important. NOw that resolution has gotten finer, and they indicate that CO2 rises after global temperatures increase, they're irrelevant.

Neat game, huh?

[bonnie]

Quote:

Explain Greenland of centuries ago then?

YOu don't understand, bonnie. When the ice cores had a resolution of centuries, and indicated that CO2 increased before global temperatures warmed, they were important. NOw that resolution has gotten finer, and they indicate that CO2 rises after global temperatures increase, they're irrelevant.

Neat game, huh?

Reminds me of my older brother. He is 4 years older than me and we used to play a lot of board games.

Just about the time I really understood the rules and came close to winning he changed the rules of the game

[Bravus]

No rule changes. It has *always* been terrible science to join two points on a graph and claim that that forms a trend line. A 'line of best fit' incorporating all available data has always been scientific best practice. And it is absolutely indubitable that such a line on climate shows dramatic warming across the past century, continuing across the past two decades.

[Bravus]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=18

[bonnie]

No rule changes. It has *always* been terrible science to join two points on a graph and claim that that forms a trend line. A 'line of best fit' incorporating all available data has always been scientific best practice. And it is absolutely indubitable that such a line on climate shows dramatic warming across the past century, continuing across the past two decades.

If I remember correctly there wild claims in the 70's.Within a decade life as we knew it would end.

The 80's provided some wild claims ,same with the nineties.

We are still here.

How can they already have been so far off and still be credible?

Weather forecasters have a tough time getting the weather right for the next day.

[Bravus]

No-one is claiming the world is going to end. Simply that life is going to get much more difficult and much less comfortable. The warming is not the problem, in the sense of higher temperatures. It's the extra energy in the global weather system, leading to more extreme weather events - floods, droughts, tornados and hurricanes - and the loss of many of our already extremely small reserves of clean fresh water.

Anyway, the evidence has been laid out for those with ears to hear and eyes to see. Those with eyes shut and hands over their ears are very welcome to continue to embrace their ignorance, since there is no alternative anyway.

[greenbarley]

It's great to have intelligent, scientific, evidence-based debate on the issue. It is an interesting and disturbing observation that the climate change 'non-believers' never seem to offer constructive suggestions as to the way forward. Ok, so we may be 99.9% confident that humans are not heating the place... So, does this mean we're 'in the clear' and it's business as usual - burning all the fossil fuels we want for our energy needs?

I have no doubt there's bad science on each side, due to financial influences. But, the only constructive actions and suggestions are from the climate change 'believers'. We know for a fact that we'll exhaust fossil fuels, so this alone is enough reason to persue clean, renewable energy sources with extreme urgency. This also makes a lot of sense from an environmental and financial perspective.

I'd rather be working to help achieve positive outcomes for the planet and society than simply yelling from the sidelines, hoping that I'll be able to say 'I told you so'.

The other observation I would make is that even if we have 99.9% assurance, this is not enough.

[there buster]

Quote:

Those with eyes shut and hands over their ears are very welcome to continue to embrace their ignorance, since there is no alternative anyway.

Sadly, many of these are 'scientists.'

[fccool]

Fundomental,

The whole point about the debate is not necessarily that we should not do anything to keep the planet cleaner or developing better technology and cutting down on consumption and all of the garbage we produce.

The whole POLITICAL side of the human caused global warming deal is that there are some people who will benefit TREMENDOUSLY from it, while leaving most developing countries in dirt and exploiting their labor. The imperialism never ended, it just changed face.

[bonnie]

No-one is claiming the world is going to end. Simply that life is going to get much more difficult and much less comfortable. The warming is not the problem, in the sense of higher temperatures. It's the extra energy in the global weather system, leading to more extreme weather events - floods, droughts, tornados and hurricanes - and the loss of many of our already extremely small reserves of clean fresh water.

Anyway, the evidence has been laid out for those with ears to hear and eyes to see. Those with eyes shut and hands over their ears are very welcome to continue to embrace their ignorance, since there is no alternative anyway.

Still curious as to Greenland

[Bravus]

What about Greenland? Was it warmer at some point in the historical past? Yes. There definitely *was* a Medieval Warm Period, though most of the evidence strongly suggests that it was less warm on a global scale than the current period. But the warmth of Greenland was not just due to the entire globe being warmer, but likely to a difference in ocean current circulation. If warm tropical water was circulating into the North Atlantic at that period in history in a way it is not at the moment, it is likely that Greenland was warmer and some other parts of the world (which get that warmth now) were cooler than they are now.

No-one is saying the phenomena are simple, and no-one is saying that warming has not happened in the past. No-one is even saying that there are not natural effects such as sun activity that are contributing. But when looking at all the evidence, and all the effects, emissions of greenhouse gases (methane and CFCs as well as carbon dioxide) are likely to be (a) one very significant factor, with the potential to multiply natural factors if they are occurring and ( the only thing over which we have any direct influence. We can't do anything about the amount of energy the sun is putting out, but we *can* do something about the billions of tons of greenhouse gases we emit each year.

Sadly for those who wish there was, and claim there was, there is no single datum or data set that can 'prove' climate change is not happening. To prove that would require *all* the data sets to be wrong... because all the data sets point in the same direction.

[there buster]

Wow, I never realized all those famines in Bible times were caused by Big Business and big carbon footprints.

[Guest]

[Bravus]

'more'...

[Guest]

more?

[Bravus]

I said there will be *more* extreme weather events. That means there were some in the past, and in the future there will be *more*. It does not mean there were none in the past, nor ascribe all such events to climate change.

[Guest]

Oh, I see

[phkrause]

there buster, I don't agree with all the histeria over global warming, but you have to admit that we are polluting this world. There's no reason to go on some tangent over Bravus, he's just being concerned about the planet, what's wrong with that? God told us to take care of this planet, and I for one don't think we're doing such a great job.

pk

[GreatLakesGramma]

I agree.

[olger]

Well, Paul. The sticking point for open-eyed believers is the arrival of a mindset that invests mother earth with some sort of deity. This religious fervor exactly parallels Paul's prediction in his opening chapter to Romans.

Enviromentalsts often quote Psalm 24:1, but NEVER quote Psalm 115:16. Stewardship of the earth is ok, but the current crop of pagan animism/spiritism is a direct counterpart to the task of the Adventist Movement who's duty it is to "call forth the remnant."

See Paul Driessen's excellent Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death.

warm (not global) regards

oG

[Dr. Shane]

And yes, it has been hotter in the past - but only the distant past, tens of thousands of years ago (which most people here don't believe existed). Since the rise of human civilisation (or the creation of man, whichever you prefer), the current warm period is unprecedented. When it was hotter in the past, we weren't trying to find food and water for 6 billion people...

The problem with this statement is that it says that if a person wants to embrace Sola Scriptura they must dismiss global warming. I cannot disagree more. I know of many that embrace Sola Scriptura and believe in global warming.

If we believe what the Bible says, the way it says it AND what the evidence seems to tell us, then clearly the Earth has been hotter in the past while man was living, finding (or growing) food and drinking water (probably wine too).

[Dr. Shane]

Only three years are out of the past decade.1998,1999,2006

Sorry, 1998 was not in the past decade. We are now in 2009.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

Only three years are out of the past decade.1998,1999,2006

Sorry, 1998 was not in the past decade. We are now in 2009.

Yes,you are right.,neither was 1999

[there buster]

Quote:

there is no single datum or data set that can 'prove' climate change is not happening.

Talk about bad logic, let me count the ways.

1. It is impossible to prove a negative. logical fallcy

2. No one is claiming that the climate is not changing. straw man

3. Assumes facts not in evidence.