Lon
Well-known member
:up:
Psalm 104
What if climate change is real and human caused--what should Christians do about it?
- Thread starter Derf
- Start date
Psalm 104
Lon
Well-known member
:nono: Not just creationists arguing over this particular. I hadn't realized, for instance, that biological methane is responsible for the majority of methane on the planet. I don't think we should be destroying forests though.
gcthomas
New member
Not just creationists. There are three categories rejecting it right now: creationists, cranks and contrarians. None of these starts with the science in drawing their conclusions – they have a preferred outcome that fits their worldview.
I used to reject the climate change conclusion, since I regularly downloaded the data and did the stats analysis relating to the models myself, and it just wasn't significant enough to trust. But as time has gone on, I have hade to change my tune, along with everyone else (with the exception of the creationists, cranks and contrarians).
:blabla:
One, two or three?
OK, three vents for Stipe. Well done for Stipe.
When you can put a cogent argumnent together, come on back, and we'll talk.
When you can put a cogent argumnent together, come on back, and we'll talk.
I got a bit of a shock. Since Stipe responded by quoting you entirely, and is currently reduced to using emoticons for reasoning, for a moment I thought he had written that.
My first thought was that he'd had a stroke that restored his anterior cingulate gyrus, and was processing information logically.
1. The climate is changing.
2. That fact is directly attributable to man's actions.
3. The results have been and will be catastrophic.
Would you like to learn how?
(Of course you don't.)
Barbarian suggests:
When you can put a cogent argumnent together, come on back, and we'll talk.
(Stipe assumes unsupported assertions are a cogent argument)
That's our Stipe.
When you can put a cogent argumnent together, come on back, and we'll talk.
(Stipe assumes unsupported assertions are a cogent argument)
That's our Stipe.
The Myth of Global Cooling:
Articles in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten (translation available here) and in the Irish Times both ran headlines claiming that another grand solar minimum could potentially trigger an "ice age" or "mini ice age" this century. These articles actually refer to the Little Ice Age (LIA) – a period about 500 to 150 years ago when global surface temperatures were about 1°C colder than they are today.
Thus a grand solar minimum would have to cause about 1°C cooling, plus it would have to offset the continued human-caused global warming between 1 and 5°C by 2100, depending on how our greenhouse gas emissions change over the next century.
Fortunately, Solar Output is Stable
We're fortunate that the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface is very stable. Climate contrarians will often ask if we'd prefer if the planet were warming or cooling, suggesting that global warming is a good thing because at least the planet isn't getting colder. This is a false dichotomy - an ideal climate is a stable one. The relatively stable climate over the past 10,000 years has allowed establishment of human civilization, by making it possible to create large stationary agricultural farms because we could rely on stable weather patterns.
What difference would a grand solar minimum make in the amount of solar energy reaching us? Relative to current levels, the Dalton Minimum represents a 0.08% decrease, and the Maunder Minimum represents a 0.25% decline in solar radiation at the Earth's surface. That's how stable solar activity is. That's also why we're playing with fire by increasing the greenhouse effect so much and so quickly. We're threatening the stability of the climate that has been so favorable to our development.
A new grand solar minimum would not trigger another LIA; in fact, the maximum 0.3°C cooling would barely make a dent in the human-caused global warming over the next century, likely between 1 and 5°C, depending on how much we manage to reduce our fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. While this is equivalent to about a decade's worth of human-caused warming, it's also important to bear in mind that any solar cooling would only be temporary, until the end of the solar minimum.
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=448
This is why, even as we have been in a solar minimum since 2014, we're seeing record high temperatures for the Earth.
Articles in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten (translation available here) and in the Irish Times both ran headlines claiming that another grand solar minimum could potentially trigger an "ice age" or "mini ice age" this century. These articles actually refer to the Little Ice Age (LIA) – a period about 500 to 150 years ago when global surface temperatures were about 1°C colder than they are today.
Thus a grand solar minimum would have to cause about 1°C cooling, plus it would have to offset the continued human-caused global warming between 1 and 5°C by 2100, depending on how our greenhouse gas emissions change over the next century.
Fortunately, Solar Output is Stable
We're fortunate that the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface is very stable. Climate contrarians will often ask if we'd prefer if the planet were warming or cooling, suggesting that global warming is a good thing because at least the planet isn't getting colder. This is a false dichotomy - an ideal climate is a stable one. The relatively stable climate over the past 10,000 years has allowed establishment of human civilization, by making it possible to create large stationary agricultural farms because we could rely on stable weather patterns.
What difference would a grand solar minimum make in the amount of solar energy reaching us? Relative to current levels, the Dalton Minimum represents a 0.08% decrease, and the Maunder Minimum represents a 0.25% decline in solar radiation at the Earth's surface. That's how stable solar activity is. That's also why we're playing with fire by increasing the greenhouse effect so much and so quickly. We're threatening the stability of the climate that has been so favorable to our development.
A new grand solar minimum would not trigger another LIA; in fact, the maximum 0.3°C cooling would barely make a dent in the human-caused global warming over the next century, likely between 1 and 5°C, depending on how much we manage to reduce our fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. While this is equivalent to about a decade's worth of human-caused warming, it's also important to bear in mind that any solar cooling would only be temporary, until the end of the solar minimum.
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=448
This is why, even as we have been in a solar minimum since 2014, we're seeing record high temperatures for the Earth.
(Stipe demonstrates his ability to count)
Very good, Stipe. Now, do you think you could explain to us why anthropogenic warming has completely reversed the cooling effects of a solar minimum?
Very good, Stipe. Now, do you think you could explain to us why anthropogenic warming has completely reversed the cooling effects of a solar minimum?
Blablabarian demonstrates his complete inability to answer a simple question.
You accuse me of being a "denier," so here it is:
The climate is changing.
The actions of men are the reason.
The effects have been and will be catastrophic.
Which of those three statements do you disagree with?
You accuse me of being a "denier," so here it is:
The climate is changing.
The actions of men are the reason.
The effects have been and will be catastrophic.
Which of those three statements do you disagree with?
(Barbarian gives Stipe yet another chance to answer the question:
Very good, Stipe. Now, do you think you could explain to us why anthropogenic warming has completely reversed the cooling effects of a solar minimum?
(Stipe dodges again, but asking questions already answered)
Yep. Last few years have each been the top five all time, and three of them were record highs.
Yep. CO2because of the huge amount we're dumping into the atmosphere, and because it absorbs infrared at frequencies other greenhouse gases don't, is a particularly major cause.
People living along the Gulf coast think so. The increasing severity of storms and the accompanying damage and increase in insurance rates say so.
The elevated temperatures and drying of the Sahel, leading to wars and insurrections as people try to find a way to live there indicates so.
But the worst is yet to come. We haven't seen the continental glaciers start to melt until very recently. The huge loss of ice in the Arctic Ocean won't raise sea levels. Do you understand why, Stipe? Tell us why.
Now, since I've told you a second time, time for you to man up and answer my question.
So, which is it, Blablabee?
One, two or three?
From the looks of it, you're trying to agree with me without making it obvious.
No one really expected you to answer the question, Stipe. Your reputation pretty well leads everyone to count on it.
:yawn:
When you accuse people of being "deniers" and refuse to specify exactly what you disagree with, it shows that your only goal is to be a troll.
:troll: