Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[CapelDodger]

It also reminds me this infamous graphic I saw with the title "One year of cooling wipes out 100 years of global warming"http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=229&pictureid=6773

Somebody actually stuck that title on it, and it wasn't The Onion?

 

[ShadowSot]

I've got a question, I understand the ocean acts as both a large co2 sink, as well as produces a large amount of our oxegyn. How might global warming affect this?

 

[bit_pattern]

I've got a question, I understand the ocean acts as both a large co2 sink, as well as produces a large amount of our oxegyn. How might global warming affect this?

The ocean begins to become 'saturated' with CO2 & loses its ability to store CO2 and causing an amplifying feedback, the change in pH causes an 'acidifying' effect on the ocean. How it effects O though I'm not sure

 

[aleCcowaN]

Someone can also explain in a better English than mine about gas solubility decreasing with temperatures and why warm waters are so transparent and not the ideal place for fisheries. Opening either a Coke, beer or champaign will show what happens with CO2 in water when temperature is lower or higher. Certainly, having a bottle of warm champaign and removing the cork to see it foamy and spilled all over the place is not an example of what is going to happen to the seas in the -inescapable- event of more warming, but everyone can think of the seas absorbing CO2 in the actual conditions and deduct what is going to happen with that capacity if more CO2 drives to a warmer world with warmer oceans.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Somebody actually stuck that title on it, and it wasn't The Onion?

Regrettably, about 99% of population can't read a graphic properly so there's a place to verbally modify what they don't see. A huge fraction of the population is made of people who don't understand a graphic and automatically think that somebody offering a figure and asserting something about it is a scientific that is right by default. Another important percentage of the population is made of people who barely understand a graphic and by verbal means they can be led to think that they concluded what is being verbally asserted.

AGW denialism is a business of ignorance, and ignorance is a commodity that has low value just because it's too much abundant.

 

[manofthesea]

It's so much more than a business.

As Christians, we should be concerned about our effect on our environment. God appointed man to be the steward of this world (Genesis 1:28), not the destroyer of it. However, we should not allow environmentalism to become a form of idolatry, where the “rights” of an inanimate planet and its non-human creatures are held in higher esteem than God (Romans 1:25) and man created in His image.

The question of anthropogenic global warming should not divide Christian believers from each other (Luke 11:17). Environmental issues are important, but they are not the most important questions facing mankind. Christians ought to treat our world with respect and good stewardship, but we should not allow politically driven hysteria to dominate our view of the environment.

And a convenient set of links for denial.

For further research on global warming, we recommend the following articles:
http://www.icr.org/article/3233/
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
http://www.xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/14/161152.shtml
http://www.whrc.org/carbon/images/GlobalCarbonCycleLG.gif
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-1.htm

http://www.gotquestions.org/global-warming.html

 

[ShadowSot]

The ocean begins to become 'saturated' with CO2 & loses its ability to store CO2 and causing an amplifying feedback, the change in pH causes an 'acidifying' effect on the ocean. How it effects O though I'm not sure

Seeing as how a huge chunk of our Oxygen comes from plankton, it seems that such drastic affects in the ocean would seriously impact the breathable atmosphere.

 

[aleCcowaN]

It's so much more than a business.



And a convenient set of links for denial.



http: // www gotquestions org/global-warming html <link removed to avoid promoting that awful site>

It's ironic that one of the pages linked starts with the sentence "Dogma is not only the enemy of science, but the enemy of humankind" while the site recommending it says it's difficult to determine the effects of this or that while offering a pushable button with the text "I have accepted Christ today". So many parishioners are immune to cognitive dissonance.

 

[macdoc]

This from the Skeptical debunk..

Over the past decade, aerosol emissions (which cause cooling by blocking sunlight) have risen, solar activity has been low, there has been a preponderance of La Niña events (which also cause short-term surface cooling), and heat has accumulated in the deep oceans. Thus it is entirely unsurprising that these short-term effects all aligning in the cooling direction in recent years have offset much of the surface warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/misleading-daily-mail-prebunked-nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html

I wondered about the Asian brown cloud impact as surely aerosols must be up as some cities in China are seeing 25% less solar radiation hit the surface.

Anyone see articles on it? We going to relive the global dimming of the 70s??

Inadvertent climate engineering....

 

[Acleron]

This from the Skeptical debunk..



http://www.skepticalscience.com/misleading-daily-mail-prebunked-nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html

I wondered about the Asian brown cloud impact as surely aerosols must be up as some cities in China are seeing 25% less solar radiation hit the surface.

Anyone see articles on it? We going to relive the global dimming of the 70s??

Inadvertent climate engineering....

We've been doing that for quite a few years.

 

[macdoc]

Yes even the 70s when S02 was dimming the planet. Would be nice to actually get some rational planning engaged but a bit hard with the denidiots still bending perceptions.
Reality appears to be setting in with the public tho given the wild weather.

Not much to done about it all......4 degrees is just about inevitable.

 

[BenBurch]

4? More like 8.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Réaumur? Rankine? Delisle?

 

[bobwtfomg]

Réaumur? Rankine? Delisle?

This is a science thread so I'm assuming Celsius, in which case 8 seems a bit high unless we manage to completely burn all the FFs, I forgot that's the business as usual , growth is good plan

 

[aleCcowaN]

I suppose then they were talking about global average temperatures dropping some 6 or 7°D in the long run, though I think they're going to drop just 4 degrees.

 

[bobwtfomg]

I suppose then they were talking about global average temperatures dropping some 6 or 7°D in the long run, though I think they're going to drop just 4 degrees.

Who's talking about temps dropping?

 

[Acleron]

Réaumur? Rankine? Delisle?

Ah, degrees Rankine, they were used by NASA at one stage, possibly still are.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Who's talking about temps dropping?

A drop of 2, 4 or 6°D is forecast in an increasingly warming world. (Maybe, a problem with my English. To me, drop = fall, decrease, diminution, decrement)

 

[jimbob]

A drop of 2, 4 or 6°D is forecast in an increasingly warming world. (Maybe, a problem with my English. To me, drop = fall, decrease, diminution, decrement)

Not with your English I think, as much as with a common unfamiliarity with the Rankine scale, and the fact that it counts backwards. (Thanks wiki, as I was part of that group too).

 

[Megalodon]

I think this is a case for The Escalator

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Cool... or, as I posted back in '08