Global Warming

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
182
Points
73
In these last days (2 Timothy 3:1-5) it is hard to trust news reports - our literature is careful about researching the many ways man is ruining the earth - not just global warming. However, it seems that global warming is the primary topic on the environment in this forum section - why is that? What about plastic pollution of the oceans, for example? So, I welcome any subject that involves the destruction of earth's environment - including deforestation, extinctions due to loss of habitat, etc.

Before going into scientific details, this warning: God will bring to ruin those ruining the earth as foretold in Revelation 11:18.

But, as per thread title, I will start with a source I trust for accurate information - our literature - concerning global warming. Note, however, that while we are careful about accuracy of information, our literature is not infallible. Like the body of scientific literature, our older literature is out of date on some points due to further research. As per my user name, I am into science and hope posters will actually document claims made with scientific research. OK, for starters, our literature has noted global warning as one of many ways that man is ruining the earth - not the most important way but since this seems to be the more popular topic in this forum section I will start with that.

I'll let you all study this entire 2008 article - I will simply start with this introduction:

"Is Planet Earth Under Threat?

GLOBAL WARMING has been described as the greatest threat facing humanity. What worries researchers, says the journal Science, “is the prospect that we’ve started a slow-moving but relentless avalanche of change.” Skeptics question this assertion. True, many agree that the earth is warming, but they are uncertain of both the causes and the consequences. Human activities may be a factor, they say, but not necessarily the primary one. Why the disagreement?

For one thing, the physical processes that underlie global climate systems are complex and not fully understood. In addition, interest groups tend to put their own spin on the scientific data, such as that used to show why temperatures are rising."

So, what do you all think - is it hard to find the truth amidst the "spins" of various interest groups? There are so many factors, but I hope to concentrate on two points for starters:

1. Extinctions (not just due to global warming).

2. Sea level rise.

The reason I wish to start with those two points is this:

1. Either extinctions are occurring or they are not occurring.

2. Either sea level is rising, or it isn't rising. The lives of people living on low elevation islands is a reason this is important.

Feel free to post evidence. I will start with the more current speech by Greta Thunberg - first a written transcript here:


And the actual speech (audio and video):


What "feedback loops" and "tipping points?"

What is the actual science involved in the points she brought up? She pointed to IPCC data - is this data accurate? What of her point about 1.5 degree C limit? Or the graphs she referred to?

A more recent news report on a more recent speech from Greta Thunberg:


For this thread, I will key in on one of her statements:

"We need to bring the science into the conversation."
 
Last edited:
OP
N

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
182
Points
73
A news clip from our literature: is this true?


"A long-standing territorial dispute between Bangladesh and India over a small island in the Bay of Bengal has been resolved—by a rise in sea level. The uninhabited territory, known to the Indians as New Moore Island and to the Bangladeshis as South Talpatti Island, never extended more than six feet (1.9 m) above sea level. However, satellite images show that the sea has recently submerged it. “What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking has been resolved by global warming,” says Professor Sugata Hazra, of Calcutta’s Jadavpur University School of Oceanographic Studies."


Abstract (anyone have access to the full 2016 article?) -

":Loss of two small estuarine islands, Lohachara and Suparibhanga has been reported earlier from the Indian Sundarban lying adjacent to the northern Bay of Bengal. The present paper reports the loss of another offshore island, New Moore, popularly known as Purbasha at the border of India and Bangladesh. The island came into existence after a cyclone in 1970. This study reveals the loss of New Moore Island within the time period of 1985 to 2000 from the analysis of multi-temporal satellite images. The rate of erosion, of two other offshore islands, Jambu Dwip (0.187 sq. km yr.[−1]) and Maya Dwip (0.508 sq. km yr.[−1]) situated along the same latitude of New Moore, were also estimated within the same time period. A close relationship was observed between the rate of erosion of small islands and the rate of rising sea level in this region as measured from the tide data at the Sagar Island and other observatories during the study period. The sea surface temperature analysis from the year 1990 to 1998 showed a slight increase (~ 0.8 °C increase), indicating the thermal expansion of the sea surface. Moreover, the sea surface height analyzed during the period 1993–2000 using satellite altimeter data of TOPEX/POSEIDON revealed a steady increase of 1.23 cm yr.[−1] sea level acceleration."
 
OP
N

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
182
Points
73
My other main point (besides the above evidence of sea level rise): extinctions.

First from our literature:


"From South Africa to India, coral reefs in the Indian Ocean are in big trouble, says The Economist. Marine biologists recently made the alarming discovery that “50-95% of the ocean’s coral reefs have died in the past two years.” The reason is coral’s inability to tolerate a sea temperature rise of over 2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit [1 to 2 degrees Centigrade] for more than a few weeks. “In 1998, the temperature around the Seychelles was 3°C [5°F] above seasonal norms for several weeks,” says the report. The researchers believe that this provides “dramatic evidence of global warming.” Coral death cost the Maldive Islands $63 million in 1998/99. Tourists expecting to see beautiful reefs, says The Economist, “turn away in dismay from piles of unsightly grey rubble.” Olof Linden, the coeditor of the report, stated that “a large part of the most diverse ecosystem on the planet has simply tipped over.” Because coral reefs are important marine nurseries, this disaster also bodes ill for coastal populations that depend on fishing."

Is this true? From a science journal [remember my interest in science]:


Excerpts:

"More than 60 per cent of coral in reefs in the Maldives has been hit by bleaching as the world is gripped by record temperatures in 2016.

Bleaching happens when algae that lives in the coral is expelled due to stress caused by extreme and sustained changes in temperatures, turning the coral white and putting it at risk of dying if conditions do not return to normal.

Unusually warm ocean temperatures due to climate change and a strong El Niño phenomenon that pushes up temperatures further have led to coral reefs worldwide being affected in a global bleaching event over the past two years.

Preliminary results of a survey in May this year found all the reefs looked at in the Maldives, in the Indian Ocean, were affected by high sea surface temperatures."

"
Around 60 per cent of all assessed coral colonies, and up to 90 per cent in some areas, were bleached.

The study was conducted by the Maldives Marine Research Centre and the Environmental Protection Agency, in partnership with the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

It took place on Alifu Alifu Atholhu – North Ari Atoll – chosen as a representative atoll of the Maldives.

“Bleaching events are becoming more frequent and more severe due to global climate change,” said Ameer Abdulla, research team leader and senior adviser to the IUCN on marine biodiversity and conservation science.

“Our survey was undertaken at the height of the 2016 event and preliminary findings of the extent of the bleaching are alarming, with initial coral mortality already observed.

“We are expecting this mortality to increase if bleached corals are unable to recover.”

"The Maldives contains around 3 per cent of the world’s coral reefs and the islands are considered particularly at risk of climate change because they are low-lying and threatened by sea level rises.

In Australia, more than a fifth of the Great Barrier Reef is estimated to have died as a result of the worst mass bleaching event in history. In Kiribati in the Pacific, as much as 80 per cent of the coral is dead."
 
OP
N

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
182
Points
73
OP
N

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
182
Points
73
You are not alone - many people do not like Jehovah's Witnesses. However, disrespectful language adds nothing to the scientific data.
 

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
80,620
Reaction score
18,202
Points
2,220
I
Not this bullshit again.
Can you respond with respectful language?
Can you talk about something real that's not just a theory?
God said "Be fruitful and multiply."
He made this Earth, and it's capable of "sustaining" a lot more people.
You're just buying into the UN Agenda 21 mantra.
I am not buying into anything. How about addressing the actual scientific evidence I am posting?
You aren't posting any evidence just cut and paste bullshit from paid government workers keeping their jobs.
 
OP
N

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
182
Points
73
Of course, as I noted in OP, global warming is not the only reason for extinctions. Again, from our literature:


"What the Bible foretold: the ruining of the earthRevelation 11:18.

What recent reports say: “Human activities have taken the planet to the edge of a massive wave of species extinctions.” “Nearly two thirds of the services provided by nature to humankind are found to be in decline worldwide.”—Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

“Human-made greenhouse gases have brought the Earth’s climate close to critical tipping points, with potentially dangerous consequences for the planet.”—NASA, Goddard Institute for Space Studies."

After noting that it is difficult to get exact numbers of extinctions because many species are likely becoming extinct before being discovered to exist, another of our articles notes:


"Based on the calculations of scientist Stuart Pimm of the University of Tennessee, National Geographic states that “11 percent of birds, or 1,100 species out of the world’s nearly 10,000, are on the edge of extinction; it’s doubtful that the majority of these 1,100 will live much beyond the end of the [21st century].” The same magazine stated: “A team of respected botanists recently reported that one in eight plants is at risk of becoming extinct. ‘It’s not just species on islands or in rain forests or just birds or big charismatic mammals,’ says Pimm. ‘It’s everything and it’s everywhere. . . . It is a worldwide epidemic of extinctions.’”"

Is this true? I'll let you all do some scientific research and inform us of what you have found in the body of scientific literature.. Note that our above article notes a number of reasons for extinctions not just global warming. Habitat destruction by humans is one of a number of other reasons.
 
OP
N

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
182
Points
73
I
Not this bullshit again.
Can you respond with respectful language?
Can you talk about something real that's not just a theory?
God said "Be fruitful and multiply."
He made this Earth, and it's capable of "sustaining" a lot more people.
You're just buying into the UN Agenda 21 mantra.
I am not buying into anything. How about addressing the actual scientific evidence I am posting?
You aren't posting any evidence just cut and paste bullshit from paid government workers keeping their jobs.
So you think Springer.com is paid by government workers? Can you document your claims?

Can you point to any scientific journals you do not believe are paid by government workers?

Btw - which government? India or Bangladesh (concerning the Maldive Islands or the extinct New Moore Island)?
 

gipper

Libertarian/Anarchist
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
35,542
Reaction score
8,171
Points
1,330
The warming we have experienced is inconsequential relative to prior warming periods. I suspect warming is a minor issue.

Now, pollution is not. Something must be done about humans polluting the land, sea, and air.

Secondly, the world’s population has grown enormously these past few decades. Unless we utilize technology to properly handle population growth, pollution and species extinctions will continue.
 

Marion Morrison

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2017
Messages
56,417
Reaction score
13,612
Points
2,190
I
Not this bullshit again.
Can you respond with respectful language?
Can you talk about something real that's not just a theory?
God said "Be fruitful and multiply."
He made this Earth, and it's capable of "sustaining" a lot more people.
You're just buying into the UN Agenda 21 mantra.
I am not buying into anything. How about addressing the actual scientific evidence I am posting?
What scientific evidence, boy?
 
OP
N

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
182
Points
73
I
Not this bullshit again.
Can you respond with respectful language?
Can you talk about something real that's not just a theory?
God said "Be fruitful and multiply."
He made this Earth, and it's capable of "sustaining" a lot more people.
You're just buying into the UN Agenda 21 mantra.
I am not buying into anything. How about addressing the actual scientific evidence I am posting?
What scientific evidence, boy?
Try reading and responding to the scientific evidence I posted - more to follow btw.
 
OP
N

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
182
Points
73
From:


Since someone complained about cut and paste - I will let you all read the article.

From the Proceedings of the National Academy of sciences (=PNAS) [any of you abject to this as a valid scientific source? If so, please post what scientific source you all prefer):


Excerpt:

"The strong focus on species extinctions, a critical aspect of the contemporary pulse of biological extinction, leads to a common misimpression that Earth’s biota is not immediately threatened, just slowly entering an episode of major biodiversity loss. This view overlooks the current trends of population declines and extinctions. Using a sample of 27,600 terrestrial vertebrate species, and a more detailed analysis of 177 mammal species, we show the extremely high degree of population decay in vertebrates, even in common “species of low concern.” Dwindling population sizes and range shrinkages amount to a massive anthropogenic erosion of biodiversity and of the ecosystem services essential to civilization. This “biological annihilation” underlines the seriousness for humanity of Earth’s ongoing sixth mass extinction event."

See the entire extensive article.



Excerpt:

"A review of the drivers of extinction risk revealed that the heaviest vertebrates are most threatened by direct killing by humans. By contrast, the lightest vertebrates are most threatened by habitat loss and modification stemming especially from pollution, agricultural cropping, and logging. Our results offer insight into halting the ongoing wave of vertebrate extinctions by revealing the vulnerability of large and small taxa, and identifying size-specific threats. Moreover, they indicate that, without intervention, anthropogenic activities will soon precipitate a double truncation of the size distribution of the world’s vertebrates, fundamentally reordering the structure of life on our planet."


Excerpt:

"We demonstrate that depending on scenarios of population growth and warming, over the coming 50 y, 1 to 3 billion people are projected to be left outside the climate conditions that have served humanity well over the past 6,000 y. Absent climate mitigation or migration, a substantial part of humanity will be exposed to mean annual temperatures warmer than nearly anywhere today."
 
OP
N

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
182
Points
73
There is no science that describes how atmospheric CO2 can warm the deep oceans.

None
True. But how is that relevant? The stirring time of earth's oceans is about 1,000 years whereas the current emergency involves decades. Surface ocean temperatures are of more relevance right now - would you agree? OK, I am going offline for awhile. I hope when I return someone else will actually post scientific evidence. Is that hope realistic? Time will tell!

Btw - ocean pollution is also a serious problem - try researching plastics!

You all - please remember the warning in Revelation 11:18 that our Creator will bring to ruin those ruining the earth.
 

Sunsettommy

Platinum Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
5,342
Reaction score
2,692
Points
1,050
From Post one quotes:

"I'll let you all study this entire 2008 article - I will simply start with this introduction:"

No link, thus useless.

=======

"Is Planet Earth Under Threat?

GLOBAL WARMING has been described as the greatest threat facing humanity. What worries researchers, says the journal Science, “is the prospect that we’ve started a slow-moving but relentless avalanche of change.” Skeptics question this assertion. True, many agree that the earth is warming, but they are uncertain of both the causes and the consequences. Human activities may be a factor, they say, but not necessarily the primary one. Why the disagreement?

For one thing, the physical processes that underlie global climate systems are complex and not fully understood. In addition, interest groups tend to put their own spin on the scientific data, such as that used to show why temperatures are rising."

So, what do you all think - is it hard to find the truth amidst the "spins" of various interest groups? There are so many factors, but I hope to concentrate on two points for starters:"

===

A spin of its own that completely leaves out the history of the Holocene, to make this rootless statement.

Hardly anyone dispute the warming, but only skeptics seem to look at the big picture (Last 10,000 years) while warmist/Alarmists look at the small picture (the last 100 or just the last 41 years) which is why warmist'alarmists are frequently illogical, since they ignore past climates to wail over a short slice of the recent past.

Warmists/alarmists put most of their argument over a single trace gas, that has at best a very small heat budget effect. That is why they fail, they leave out too many possible warming factors.

They run their belief system over a bunch of unverifiable emission/temperature modeling scenarios that run to year 2050, 2100 and 3100.

Not going to bother with a manipulated Childs numerous unsupported drivel.

You asked question that well known answers abounds in the literature, what is your motivation for doing it?

"1. Either extinctions are occurring or they are not occurring.

2. Either sea level is rising, or it isn't rising. The lives of people living on low elevation islands is a reason this is important."

Then you write this:

"Feel free to post evidence. I will start with the more current speech by Greta Thunberg - first a written transcript here:"

Skeptics commonly use real evidence, while warmist/alarmist use mostly climate models.

You seem smitten over a girl who doesn't show understanding over a topic she babbles over, it is why I don't give a shit what she thinks anymore, as she has been repeatedly exposed as a liar, hypocrite and a galoot!

What are you really after?
 
OP
N

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
182
Points
73
From Post one quotes:

"I'll let you all study this entire 2008 article - I will simply start with this introduction:"

No link, thus useless.

=======

"Is Planet Earth Under Threat?

GLOBAL WARMING has been described as the greatest threat facing humanity. What worries researchers, says the journal Science, “is the prospect that we’ve started a slow-moving but relentless avalanche of change.” Skeptics question this assertion. True, many agree that the earth is warming, but they are uncertain of both the causes and the consequences. Human activities may be a factor, they say, but not necessarily the primary one. Why the disagreement?

For one thing, the physical processes that underlie global climate systems are complex and not fully understood. In addition, interest groups tend to put their own spin on the scientific data, such as that used to show why temperatures are rising."

So, what do you all think - is it hard to find the truth amidst the "spins" of various interest groups? There are so many factors, but I hope to concentrate on two points for starters:"

===

A spin of its own that completely leaves out the history of the Holocene, to make this rootless statement.

Hardly anyone dispute the warming, but only skeptics seem to look at the big picture (Last 10,000 years) while warmist/Alarmists look at the small picture (the last 100 or just the last 41 years) which is why warmist'alarmists are frequently illogical, since they ignore past climates to wail over a short slice of the recent past.

Warmists/alarmists put most of their argument over a single trace gas, that has at best a very small heat budget effect. That is why they fail, they leave out too many possible warming factors.

They run their belief system over a bunch of unverifiable emission/temperature modeling scenarios that run to year 2050, 2100 and 3100.

Not going to bother with a manipulated Childs numerous unsupported drivel.

You asked question that well known answers abounds in the literature, what is your motivation for doing it?

"1. Either extinctions are occurring or they are not occurring.

2. Either sea level is rising, or it isn't rising. The lives of people living on low elevation islands is a reason this is important."

Then you write this:

"Feel free to post evidence. I will start with the more current speech by Greta Thunberg - first a written transcript here:"

Skeptics commonly use real evidence, while warmist/alarmist use mostly climate models.

You seem smitten over a girl who doesn't show understanding over a topic she babbles over, it is why I don't give a shit what she thinks anymore, as she has been repeatedly exposed as a liar, hypocrite and a galoot!

What are you really after?
My mistake - our link:


I will try to edit it into OP as well - thank you for alerting me to my error.
 
OP
N

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
182
Points
73
From Post one quotes:

"I'll let you all study this entire 2008 article - I will simply start with this introduction:"

No link, thus useless.

=======

"Is Planet Earth Under Threat?

GLOBAL WARMING has been described as the greatest threat facing humanity. What worries researchers, says the journal Science, “is the prospect that we’ve started a slow-moving but relentless avalanche of change.” Skeptics question this assertion. True, many agree that the earth is warming, but they are uncertain of both the causes and the consequences. Human activities may be a factor, they say, but not necessarily the primary one. Why the disagreement?

For one thing, the physical processes that underlie global climate systems are complex and not fully understood. In addition, interest groups tend to put their own spin on the scientific data, such as that used to show why temperatures are rising."

So, what do you all think - is it hard to find the truth amidst the "spins" of various interest groups? There are so many factors, but I hope to concentrate on two points for starters:"

===

A spin of its own that completely leaves out the history of the Holocene, to make this rootless statement.

Hardly anyone dispute the warming, but only skeptics seem to look at the big picture (Last 10,000 years) while warmist/Alarmists look at the small picture (the last 100 or just the last 41 years) which is why warmist'alarmists are frequently illogical, since they ignore past climates to wail over a short slice of the recent past.

Warmists/alarmists put most of their argument over a single trace gas, that has at best a very small heat budget effect. That is why they fail, they leave out too many possible warming factors.

They run their belief system over a bunch of unverifiable emission/temperature modeling scenarios that run to year 2050, 2100 and 3100.

Not going to bother with a manipulated Childs numerous unsupported drivel.

You asked question that well known answers abounds in the literature, what is your motivation for doing it?

"1. Either extinctions are occurring or they are not occurring.

2. Either sea level is rising, or it isn't rising. The lives of people living on low elevation islands is a reason this is important."

Then you write this:

"Feel free to post evidence. I will start with the more current speech by Greta Thunberg - first a written transcript here:"

Skeptics commonly use real evidence, while warmist/alarmist use mostly climate models.

You seem smitten over a girl who doesn't show understanding over a topic she babbles over, it is why I don't give a shit what she thinks anymore, as she has been repeatedly exposed as a liar, hypocrite and a galoot!

What are you really after?
HMMM - I thought I responded. Anyway - thank you for pointing our my error in not including a link - and I can't edit it into OP but here it is:

 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top