• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] Global Warming?

Caroline H

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
5,830
Reaction score
7
The issue of Global Warming is a touchy one for some....personally I think it is a fad that is making some people VERY rich. This article was written by a man named Phillip Brennan, I encourage you to read it, it's not long.

http://www.newsmax.com/brennan/climate_ ... 25766.html

Here is just a part of it:

Goldenberg writes, "For many Americans, the report released today, entitled ‘Global climate change impacts in the U.S.,’ provides the most tangible evidence of the economic costs of climate change  from the need to relocate airports in Alaska built on permafrost, to the increased need for pesticides in agriculture, to an electrical grid straining to meet the increased demand for air conditioning in summer and ageing sewer systems brought to bursting point by heavy run-off in 770 American cities and towns."

Wow! Scary, huh?

Well, not really. In order for all that nasty stuff to happen, the planet has to keep warming at an alarming rate. If we deal with climate change now, the report warns, "the average US temperature will rise 0.4C-1.83C (4-6.5F) by the end of this century." If we don't, "average temperatures could rise by about 2.1C-4.3C (7-11F) with catastrophic consequences for human health and the economy."

A lot of ifs, totally unsupported by reality.

Let's get this straight. The planet is not warming.

What warming there was stopped over 10 years ago. Moreover, it is now apparent that the proof that the planet was warming comes from largely from temperature readings which meteorologist Anthony Watts warns are unreliable.

He photographed and visually inspected 850 stations in the U.S. and extrapolated their findings globally and learned that fully 89 percent failed to meet the National Weather Service's location requirements.

Many of the locations, wrote Watts, "were located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering hot rooftops. And near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat."

But let's not argue. The planet was warming since the end of the little ice age. It stopped in 1998, and over the past decade, it's been getting cooler.

In some places, a lot cooler.
 
I never bought into the al gore propaganda.

Global warming? what a load.
 
Let's get this straight. The planet is not warming.

Let's take a look...

208488main_global_temp_change.jpg


The data say it is.

What warming there was stopped over 10 years ago.

Hmmm... let's look at the actual numbers...

  • 1999 46
    2000 40
    2001 56
    2002 67
    2003 65
    2004 59
    2005 75
    2006 64
    2007 72
    2008 55
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

Only one year in the previous ten was as hot as any year this decade. And if you'll do a regression line, you'll see that there has been a definite upward trend this decade. If you're not sure how to do it, I can do it for you.

Moreover, it is now apparent that the proof that the planet was warming comes from largely from temperature readings which meteorologist Anthony Watts warns are unreliable.

He photographed and visually inspected 850 stations in the U.S. and extrapolated their findings globally and learned that fully 89 percent failed to meet the National Weather Service's location requirements.

Many of the locations, wrote Watts, "were located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering hot rooftops. And near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat."

So the reason these non-standard locations have been getting hotter over the past few years is...? They would trend upward if the Earth was warming, and would trend down, if the Earth was cooling. In fact, they do. They show the same fluctuations that other stations do. Due to a strong La Nina, and a sunspot minimum, 2008 was relatively cool (although still hotter than nine of the previous decade). These stations that your guy thinks are substandard, showed the same fluctuations.

But let's not argue. The planet was warming since the end of the little ice age. It stopped in 1998, and over the past decade, it's been getting cooler.

Someone's had a little fun with your trust in them. Look and the data, note the graph, and learn.
 
The earth's atmosphere has actually cooled by 0.13° Celsius since 1979 according to highly accurate satellite-based atmospheric temperature measurements. By contrast, computer climate models predicted that the globe should have warmed by an easily detectable 0.4° C over the last fifteen years.

The scientific evidence argues against the existence of a greenhouse crisis, against the notion that realistic policies could achieve any meaningful climatic impact, and against the claim that we must act now if we are to reduce the greenhouse threat.

Current computer climate models are incapable of coupling the oceans and atmosphere; misrepresent the role of sea ice, snow caps, localized storms, and biological systems; and fail to account accurately for the effects of clouds.

Temperature records reveal that predictive models are off by a factor of two when applied retroactively in projecting the change in global temperature for this century.

The amount of warming from 1881 to 1993 is 0.54° C. Nearly 70 percent of the warming of the entire time period  0.37° C â€â€occurred in the first half of the record  before the period of the greatest build-up of greenhouse gases.

Accuracy in land-based measurements of global temperatures is frustrated by the dearth of stations, frequent station relocations, and changes in how ocean-going ships make measurements.

Although all of the greenhouse computer models predict that the greatest warming will occur in the Arctic region of the Northern Hemisphere, temperature records indicate that the Arctic has actually cooled by 0.88° C over the past fifty years.

Corrective environmental policies would have a minuscule impact on the climate. According to its own projections, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's own plan would spare the earth only a few hundredths of a degree of warming by middle of the next century.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm
 
The earth's atmosphere has actually cooled by 0.13° Celsius since 1979 according to highly accurate satellite-based atmospheric temperature measurements. By contrast, computer climate models predicted that the globe should have warmed by an easily detectable 0.4° C over the last fifteen years.

As you see from the GISS data, the Earth has warmed over that period. You see, the guys who wrote this little dishonesty did a switch on you. They substituted lower troposphere readings, instead of surface level atmospheric temperature readings. Do they know better? Sure. But they were pretty sure that you didn't.

The lower troposphere data appears to show cooling, because for a number of years, the probes were not protected from radiant heating. Later, shields were placed over the probes so that they would actually measure the air temperature. If you look at the raw data for both periods it looks like it was warm for a long time, and then suddenly dropped, after which it began to climb again.

The scientific evidence argues against the existence of a greenhouse crisis, against the notion that realistic policies could achieve any meaningful climatic impact, and against the claim that we must act now if we are to reduce the greenhouse threat.

Show us that evidence. Sounds good.

Current computer climate models are incapable of coupling the oceans and atmosphere; misrepresent the role of sea ice, snow caps, localized storms, and biological systems; and fail to account accurately for the effects of clouds.

There are both atmospheric GCMs (AGCMs) and oceanic GCMs (OGCMs). An AGCM and an OGCM can be coupled together to form an atmosphere-ocean coupled general circulation model (CGCM or AOGCM). With the addition of other components (such as a sea ice model or a model for evapotranspiration over land), the AOGCM becomes the basis for a full climate model. Within this structure, different variations can exist, and their varying response to climate change may be studied (e.g., Sun and Hansen, 2003).

Wikipedia

Temperature records reveal that predictive models are off by a factor of two when applied retroactively in projecting the change in global temperature for this century.

The amount of warming from 1881 to 1993 is 0.54° C. Nearly 70 percent of the warming of the entire time period  0.37° C â€â€occurred in the first half of the record  before the period of the greatest build-up of greenhouse gases.

Let's take a look...
global-warming-graph.jpg


Notice that the graph goes from about -0.2 to 0.1 by 1945 (roughly the halfway point). Notice it goes from 0.1 to over 0.5 the second half. So that's wrong, too.

Accuracy in land-based measurements of global temperatures is frustrated by the dearth of stations, frequent station relocations, and changes in how ocean-going ships make measurements.

Odd, how even satellite data gives us the same results. And Hadley and GISS data agree, even though the collection protocols and methodology are different. Must be a conspiracy! :bigfrown

Although all of the greenhouse computer models predict that the greatest warming will occur in the Arctic region of the Northern Hemisphere, temperature records indicate that the Arctic has actually cooled by 0.88° C over the past fifty years.

Let's take a look...
nasa_arctic_aerosol_warming.png

Since the 1890s, surface temperatures have risen faster in the Arctic than in other regions of the world. In part, these rapid changes could be due to changes in aerosol levels. Clean air regulations passed in the 1970s, for example, have likely accelerated warming by diminishing the cooling effect of sulfates. Credit: Drew Shindell, Goddard Institute for Space Studies

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/09/n ... c-warming/

The truth is not always what we'd like it to be.
 
Denial of global warming belongs to the same category as denial that the earth is spherical, and denial that man has ever travelled to the moon.

However, what has not been shown is that greenhouse gases are anything more than a very small factor in global warming. There have been cycles of global warming and cooling in the past. The average temperature of the earth's atmosphere at the top of past cycles was greater than the present average temperature. We still have quite a way to go before we get to the pinnacle of the present warming trend, and even the total elimination of man's contribution in terms of greenhouse gases won't stop that trend.
 
These stations that your guy thinks are substandard, showed the same fluctuations.

Someone's had a little fun with your trust in them. Look and the data, note the graph, and learn.

Barbarian, I do not know who this man is...he is not "my guy". I found this article interesting and wanted to hear others' views about it. Please don't assume that I trust him or that I endorse him simply because I don't adhere to the global warming hysteria.
 
Barbarian, I do not know who this man is...he is not "my guy". I found this article interesting and wanted to hear others' views about it. Please don't assume that I trust him or that I endorse him simply because I don't adhere to the global warming hysteria.

Fair enough. Tell me about your evidence for "hysteria."
 
I really just think that people have taken it too far. Like Padion said, I believe that it is a natural occurrence that the earth cycles through....cooling and then warming. I don't think that humans are responsible for it to anything near the extent being blamed on us by people like Al Gore. It has become a very convenient issue for government and big companies.
 
I really just think that people have taken it too far. Like Padion said, I believe that it is a natural occurrence that the earth cycles through....cooling and then warming.

Right now, for example, we should be in a deep cooling period. (Strong La Nina, and a sunspot minimum). But it's getting warmer. The natural cycles are still there, but they've been swamped by man-made warming.

I don't think that humans are responsible for it to anything near the extent being blamed on us by people like Al Gore.

What does Gore say about it?

It has become a very convenient issue for government and big companies.

For a time. A congressional investigation showed that lobbyists pressured the government to make scientists back off on claims of warming. And in some cases, that happened. But it's not the case, now. And a lot of companies, realizing the damage warming can to to economic systems, are changing their position.
 
Paidion said:
Denial of global warming belongs to the same category as denial that the earth is spherical, and denial that man has ever travelled to the moon.

However, what has not been shown is that greenhouse gases are anything more than a very small factor in global warming. There have been cycles of global warming and cooling in the past. The average temperature of the earth's atmosphere at the top of past cycles was greater than the present average temperature. We still have quite a way to go before we get to the pinnacle of the present warming trend, and even the total elimination of man's contribution in terms of greenhouse gases won't stop that trend.

I agree.

Check out MIS stage 5e here:

http://www.quaternary.stratigraphy.org. ... v2007b.jpg

under Marine Isotope Stages.

We're not even to that level yet.

The vast, vast majority of warming during this particular interglacial (MIS 1) occurred during pre-Holocene and early Holocene times. Debating about a couple of degrees in the past ca. 100 years seems pretty meaningless to me, looking at the big picture. If anything I'm standing by for a reversal. I've pondered, IF global warming is in some part under our control, we might want to keep it up. MIS stages 2 and 6 don't seem particularly attractive to me. ;)
 
Right now, for example, we should be in a deep cooling period (Strong La Nina, and a sunspot minimum).

We HAVE been in a La Nina for the past couple of years:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 085128.htm

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/p ... xus05.html

Right now we might be in what is called a La Nada, and hopefully heading for an El Nino. I know in Texas we've been in drought conditions for the past couple of years and crops have failed for many during those years. Most are definitely looking forward to an El Nino. Bring on the rain!!
 
Have you seen An Inconvenient Truth?

Um, no. I don't pay much attention to what politicians say about scientific issues. Neither should you.
 
Barbarian observes:
Right now, for example, we should be in a deep cooling period (Strong La Nina, and a sunspot minimum).

We HAVE been in a La Nina for the past couple of years:

Yep. And yet these have been some of the hottest years on record. And now we have a sunspot minimum, which should also produce cooling, but it's getting hotter. Natural cycles exist, they just aren't able to overcome anthropogenic warming right now.

Right now we might be in what is called a La Nada, and hopefully heading for an El Nino. I know in Texas we've been in drought conditions for the past couple of years and crops have failed for many during those years. Most are definitely looking forward to an El Nino. Bring on the rain!!

Cooling from lowered solar activity makes a good one unlikely. But it could still happen. Long term, it might get wetter in the south and east parts of Texas. But west Texas and the Panhandle... too bad. Each fraction of a degree makes it warmer and drier in the plains. Bigger storms on the coast, but not necessarily more of them.

That's what we can expect long run. And my guess is the next El Nino will be delayed to spring, and it will be a pretty vigorous one.
 
That's what we can expect long run. And my guess is the next El Nino will be delayed to spring, and it will be a pretty vigorous one.

Bring it on. Our farmers need it!! My family is heavily invested in farm land. The only thing that has got us through the current La Nina are high oil prices. Our lands are situated in the Permian Basin (west Texas). I was out at the Gault Site last week and they have no water for wet screening. A first in 10 years (minimum).
 
I'm afraid the current warming trend is not going to be good for the Permian basin. The projection is "warmer and drier."
 
Back
Top