Global Warming Cont...

[saltydawg]

i'm having a hard time under standing. you stated that global warming would cause more hurricanes, and more intense hurricanes. you also stated, "this has been shown by science to be true," and, "this has been proven by science."

now you are saying that may not bee the case, but you're still convinced of the certainty of the science that led you to your original conclusion? please explain how you reconcile.

You got two things here. 1. the fact that AGW is happening because humans are dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere thereby causing the average global temperature to rise. and 2. which is what impact this rise in average global temperatures will have on the climate.


Number 1 is clear because of atmospheric physics, which establishes that the atmosphere gets warmer as the level of CO2 rises. Number 2 is based on models which are complex and still evolving. The bottom line is that Number 1 is going to cause significant changes to climate. Hurricanes, thunderstorms, droughts, floods, permafrost line, date of last frost, etc.

[Dirtydawg]

You got two things here. 1. the fact that AGW is happening because humans are dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere thereby causing the average global temperature to rise. and 2. which is what impact this rise in average global temperatures will have on the climate.


Number 1 is clear because of atmospheric physics, which establishes that the atmosphere gets warmer as the level of CO2 rises. Number 2 is based on models which are complex and still evolving. The bottom line is that Number 1 is going to cause significant changes to climate. Hurricanes, thunderstorms, droughts, floods, permafrost line, date of last frost, etc.

I have a serious question as I haven't really been following all the minute details of this issue, but, at one time, I saw a presentation using the graphs of the AGW advocates in which the graph actually showed that CO2 numbers rose after temperatures rose. This was from the information, as I said, that was provided by the AGW folks. Whatever happened to that argument?

[saltydawg]

I have a serious question as I haven't really been following all the minute details of this issue, but, at one time, I saw a presentation using the graphs of the AGW advocates in which the graph actually showed that CO2 numbers rose after temperatures rose. This was from the information, as I said, that was provided by the AGW folks. Whatever happened to that argument?

DD, you've made an interesting observation. I know what graph you are referring to, the one that shows CO2 levels v. temperature when the Earth is coming out of an ice age. I agree with that graph because temperatures have to increase BEFORE natural CO2 PRODUCTION begins. Eventually, the natural CO2 production increases the temperature beyond that produced by increased solar radiation.

Today, however, we are not coming out of an ice age....the increases in CO2 levels we are experiencing are man made whereas all the other CO2 increases were natural.

[johnnylightnin]

I don't want to derail this thread, but I have a question for you Salty. You've been pretty clear that you support Ron Paul. Does he have any plans to address your concerns in regards to AGW?

[arkansasbob]

You got two things here. 1. the fact that AGW is happening because humans are dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere thereby causing the average global temperature to rise. and 2. which is what impact this rise in average global temperatures will have on the climate.


Number 1 is clear because of atmospheric physics, which establishes that the atmosphere gets warmer as the level of CO2 rises. Number 2 is based on models which are complex and still evolving. The bottom line is that Number 1 is going to cause significant changes to climate. Hurricanes, thunderstorms, droughts, floods, permafrost line, date of last frost, etc.

no, "i got" one thing here. 1. you said that the impact of global warming on hurricanes was proven science (see the quotes i dragged up from this very thread), and now suddenly the science may not be as proven as you think. you are ignoring that fact.

[saltydawg]

I don't want to derail this thread, but I have a question for you Salty. You've been pretty clear that you support Ron Paul. Does he have any plans to address your concerns in regards to AGW?

I haven't seen any plans from him about controlling CO2 emissions. However, when the Congress passes legislation in this area, like it will before too long, if Ron Paul is President, he can either sign it or veto it. I suspect he will sign it because he is a Christian and wants to protect God's creation as it says to do so in the Bible.

[Dirtydawg]

I haven't seen any plans from him about controlling CO2 emissions. However, when the Congress passes legislation in this area, like it will before too long, if Ron Paul is President, he can either sign it or veto it. I suspect he will sign it because he is a Christian and wants to protect God's creation as it says to do so in the Bible.

Wow. Where in the Bible does it say that we are to "protect" God's creation?

[saltydawg]

Wow. Where in the Bible does it say that we are to "protect" God's creation?

DD, I better let Johnny answer that one.

[Dirtydawg]

DD, I better let Johnny answer that one.

Why? You're the one that made the statement. I would like for you to show me scripture and verse where it says we are to "protect" God's creation.

[saltydawg]

Why? You're the one that made the statement. I would like for you to show me scripture and verse where it says we are to "protect" God's creation.

All right, all right. Hold my feet to the fire.

Can you give me a minute.......I'll have to see if I can find my Bible.

[saltydawg]

Why? You're the one that made the statement. I would like for you to show me scripture and verse where it says we are to "protect" God's creation.

Ok, here it is. In the early chapters of the Old Testament, where the stories of creation appear, it is emphasized that humans have a responsibility to care for the Earth. (see Genesis 2:15, 2:19, 2:12, 2:9, and 1:27) In fact, further on in the Old Testament there are passages which give detailed instructions regarding care for the land and the environment. (See Leviticus 19:23-25, 25:1-7. Also Deuteronomy 25:4)

As a general overview of Christianity, its twin doctrines of creation and incarnation demonstrate the Lord's interest in and concern for the Earth and the life it contains. Consequently, are we not stewards of his work?

[arkansasbob]

it is certainly consistent with the Bible for christians to be good stewards of the earth. however, i'm pretty sure there is nowhere in the bible that says co2 is bad for the earth.


also, i'd like to point out that salty is still ignoring the fact that he just posted an article that contradicts what he previously called "proven science."

[Guisslapp]

"Going forth and multiplying" is not exactly environmentally responsible.

[saltydawg]

it is certainly consistent with the Bible for christians to be good stewards of the earth. however, i'm pretty sure there is nowhere in the bible that says co2 is bad for the earth.


also, i'd like to point out that salty is still ignoring the fact that he just posted an article that contradicts what he previously called "proven science."

The proven science is that there will be more of the most intense hurricanes. The most recent study that I posted stated that fewer hurricanes would hit the United States. Can't you see the difference? The two do not conflict.

As far as co2 not being mentioned in the Bible, can't you do better than that? Many things are not mentioned in the Bible, like crack cocaine, but that doesn't mean we should use it..

[arkansasbob]

The proven science is that there will be more of the most intense hurricanes. The most recent study that I posted stated that fewer hurricanes would hit the United States. Can't you see the difference? The two do not conflict.

As far as co2 not being mentioned in the Bible, can't you do better than that? Many things are not mentioned in the Bible, like crack cocaine, but that doesn't mean we should use it..

what the article says is that warming causes more wind shear, which makes it harder for hurricanes to form and strengthen. so, yes, this would decrease the likelihood of landfall in the u.s., but only because it decreases the likelihood of sustained major storms. which is completely contrary to the tune you were singing in 2006.

as for the bible question, my point is that we have to rely on science, not the bible, to determine what we should do regarding global warming. since the science supporting global warming is not very convincing, there is no biblical responsibility to reduce co2 emissions.