Will our church get involved? It is a Christian issue

[mnn727]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 The rise in temp is clearcut, the recession of glaciers obvious, the loss of ice from Greenland, the Arctic, and Antarctic proven and increasing in speed, 

No its NOT clearcut. Nor is it obvious. Nor has it been proven, in fact the opposite has been proven. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

6 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Someone with no agenda needs to prove mankind is the cause first.

Republican climate scientists do believe it is caused by humans. 

Read 

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS334109598520120222

[TheSkepticChristian]

6 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

No its NOT clearcut. Nor is it obvious. Nor has it been proven, in fact the opposite has been proven. 

We can't prove the Earth is 4 Billion years old, just ask a creationist, including young creation scientists. 

https://answersingenesis.org/creation-scientists/

 

[Anijen]

Once scientific issues get politicized it becomes very difficult to separate fact from the fiction. Personally I have lost faith in the world freezing, global warming, now climate change. I have read too much about fudging numbers, cooking the books, using stats to reach the outcome you desire, I can't take those for climate change seriously or put them up on a credible level.

Having said that, It wont hurt me to do my part and help in my small individual way, just in case "climate change" is real. I don't do it because I believe in CC (I do not), I do my part because it is the better choice than doing nothing.

Edited March 15, 2016 by Anijen

[TheSkepticChristian]

31 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Once scientific issues get politicized it becomes very difficult to separate fact from the fiction. Personally I have lost faith in the world freezing, global warming, now climate change.

Most scientific papers in the 70s talked about warming, not freezing. Global Warming and climate change are the same thing.

32 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Once scientific issues get politicized it becomes very difficult to separate fact from the fiction. 

and that is a win for the climate skeptics. They don't want people to get involved and don't want people to care. Global Warming theory is more than 100 years old, it is a scientific theory. 

 

 

[strappinglad]

In case there is some confusion, here is an article, one of several in various publications, from phys.org which speaks about the GROWING Antarctic ice. Also it is now well known that temps have plateaued for the last 18 years .Few scientists dispute that the climate changes and few dispute that temps have been rising for some time. The dispute is how much man has contributed to the rise and how much is natural. The so called 97% consensus is bogus statistics and based on VERY manipulated survey results.

http://phys.org/news/2013-10-antarctic-sea-ice.html

I could link to climate scientists that question the concern of 20 ft rises in sea levels  scare mongering but few here will spend  several hours following the presentations that are needed to see how observations are not following predictions. It is important to point out that CO2 in the atmosphere is necessary for life. The concern that CO2 levels have risen from 280 ppm to 400 ppm in modern times should be balanced with the idea that plants need it and there were times long past when CO2 levels were several thousand ppm and the flora survived quite nicely. People at the time were... well... beats me. I would hate to think that the overall agenda is to remove several billion people from the earth in order to reduce CO2 levels . Where's my tin foil hat now ???

[TheSkepticChristian]

12 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

In case there is some confusion, here is an article, one of several in various publications, from phys.org which speaks about the GROWING Antarctic ice. Also it is now well known that temps have plateaued for the last 18 years .Few scientists dispute that the climate changes and few dispute that temps have been rising for some time. The dispute is how much man has contributed to the rise and how much is natural. 

I think you just contradicted yourself. You are admitting the temp is rising, but at the same thing you say Antarctic ice is growing, Which is it? Is the temp rising yes or no? 

12 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I The so called 97% consensus is bogus statistics and based on VERY manipulated survey results.

Not they are not, it is the skeptics that manipulate the results.  No one has ever answer my simple question.

Give me a list of at least 10 active climate researchers that don't agree it is man-made. 

As for the rest, I won't bother with a response, just a waste of time. 

Edited March 15, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Anijen]

Quote

Most scientific papers in the 70s talked about warming, not freezing.

Hmm, I was well aware of many concerns of global freezing in the 70's, not once did I hear the term "global warming" until much later. here is a 1977 Time magazine cover; 

 

Quote

Global Warming theory is more than 100 years old, it is a scientific theory.

 Funny, I haven't heard the term "global warming" until the last 15 years. And my head has been in the school books and not in the sand.

 

The truth is once "global warming"  become politicized, then the actual science is hard to find. It is like trying to find a sliver in a forest of redwood trees. Both sides have great amount of pseudo-science in their articles. And I probably can show at least 5 different times a paper has fudged the results to come to the conclusion it desired. Then a hundred other papers will cite those papers, not knowing (or perhaps knowingly) and the bad science snowballs until it has become the leviathan it is today.

Still not convinced.

Like I said in a previous post; "I don't do it because I believe in [climate change], I do not, I do my part because it is the better choice than doing nothing."

Edited March 16, 2016 by Anijen

[TheSkepticChristian]

19 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Hmm, I was well aware of many concerns of global freezing in the 70's, not once did I hear the term "global warming" until much later. here is a 1977 Time magazine cover; 

True, but the media and Time magazine are not the scientific literature. 

19 minutes ago, Anijen said:

 Funny, I haven't heard the term "global warming" until the last 15 years. And my head has been in the school books and not in the sand.

Even old church publications prove that you are wrong. See old thread  

 

19 minutes ago, Anijen said:

The truth is once "global warming"  become politicized, then the actual science is hard to find. It is like trying to find a sliver in a forest of redwood trees. Both sides have great amount of pseudo-science in there articles. And I probably can show at least 5 different times a paper has fudged the results to come to the conclusion it desired. Then a hundred other papers will cite those papers, not knowing (or perhaps knowingly) and the bad science snowballs until it has become the leviathan it is today.

Still not convinced.

Like I said in a previous post; "I don't do it because I believe in [climate change], I do not, I do my part because it is the better choice than doing nothing."

Again, Global Warming theory is more than 100 years old, I can present a ton of evidence that it is old. 

 

Edited March 15, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Kemara]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I think you just contradicted yourself. You are admitting the temp is rising, but at the same thing you say Antarctic ice is growing, Which is it? Is the temp rising yes or no? 

You have been told previously that you have no business discussing science. This is yet another example of your inability to grasp very simple concepts let alone the complexity of an issue like climate change.

[strappinglad]

True or false - global warming is man made . Well true, sort of,  maybe somewhat.

True or false - Global warming is entirely caused by human activity. Ask that question to all the reputable scientists and see what the answer is.  

[Kemara]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Not they are not, it is the skeptics that manipulate the results.  

Good grief Skeptic, you really need to get up to speed on the issue. Weather or not one believes in anthropogenic climate change or not, one cannot deny that fudging has been going on.

https://www.google.co.nz/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=R6foVuScAaHM8ged1YHABQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=climate+scientists+caught+lying

[TheSkepticChristian]

5 minutes ago, Kemara said:

You have been told previously that you have no business discussing science. This is yet another example of your inability to grasp very simple concepts let alone the complexity of an issue like climate change.

Of course climate change is complex, but I simply want strappinglad to think. Now get out of my threads. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

4 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

True or false - global warming is man made . Well true, sort of,  maybe somewhat.

True or false - Global warming is entirely caused by human activity. Ask that question to all the reputable scientists and see what the answer is.  

Please don't ignore my question. 

[Kemara]

Just now, TheSkepticChristian said:

Of course climate change is complex, but I simply want strappinglad to think. Now get out of my threads. 

I simply want you to think. If you don't understand the very simple concept of how temperatures can be going up while Artic ice is growing then you don't belong in this conversation. 

[Anijen]

23 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

True, but the media and Time magazine are not the scientific literature. 

I posted that image not because Time isn't scientific literature, but because you said; "Most scientific papers in the 70s talked about warming, not freezing." and I made the mistake of thinking that people were talking about global warming not global freezing.  People were not aware of global warming in the 70's, (well it least all I knew were not aware). Do you have sources for most scientific papers in the 70s talking about global warming?

 

Quote

Global Warming theory is more than 100 years old, I can present a ton of evidence that it is old. 

I would like to see some of that "evidence," with one caveat; the evidence has to be from the original source. In other words, please don't cite a source written in the last 20 years that quotes that alleged 100 year old "global warming theory".

That is one of the biggest problems today in the argument of climate change; that is, that bad science, even made up science, starts getting quoted and then those quotes are re-quoted, until even respectable peer reviewed journals are quoting the old made up stuff and because it is just getting cited in a respectable  journal does not make the science anymore credible.

Likewise, like you, I can give you tons of links, but these sources are to articles showing that data was cooked up to achieve the aims of of those who believe in climate change. It does not matter if individual church leaders have come out and said climate change is real, it like the geographical argument with the location of the Book of Mormon, it is opinion, not revelation. 

I know the church has always recommended to be good stewards over the planet, but that is different from the church saying "thou shalt believe in climate change."

Anyway just my 2 cents.

[TheSkepticChristian]

33 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Do you have sources for most scientific papers in the 70s talking about global warming?

Yes 

The Myth of the 1970's Global Cooling Scientific Consensus, published by the American Meteorological Society

• Energy and Climate: Studies in Geophysics (NAS 1977)
• On present-day climatic changes (Budyko 1977)
• An Overview of Climatic Variability and Its Causal Mechanisms (Mitchell 1976)
• Global Cooling? (Damon & Kunen, 1976)
• On the Carbon Dioxide-Climate Confusion (Schneider 1975)
• Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming? (Broecker, 1975)
• The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the Climate of a General Circulation Model (Manabe 1975)
• The natural breakdown of the present interglacial and its possible intervention by human activities (Mitchell 1972)
• Man-made Carbon Dioxide and the 'Greenhouse' Effect (Sawyer 1972)
• Mauna Loa and global trends in air quality (Machta 1972)
• The Effect of Atmospheric Aerosols on Climate with Special Reference to Temperature near the Earth's surface (Mitchell 1971

 

33 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I would like to see some of that "evidence," with one caveat; the evidence has to be from the original source. In other words, please don't cite a source written in the last 20 years that quotes that alleged 100 year old "global warming theory".

 

 

“atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor, have other offices to perform of prime importance to mankind. Among them is the power of keeping all animals and plants warm...As Professor LeConte puts it, "The blanket put about the earth to keep it warm is woven of carbon dioxide and water vapor” -  Elder JOHN A. WIDTSOE,  Improvement Era, 1900  GospelLink 

“What appears to be slightly corroborative of this theory came in April, 1923, from the American consul in Bergen, Norway, in the form of a report to the Department of Commerce in Washington. The consul stated, as reported, that the Arctic Ocean had become much warmer that winter. Seals were retiring far north to the ice field much beyond their usual grounds. Ice fields were disappearing, glaciers were melting in Greenland, leaving bare ravines and moraines never seen before. The white-fish have vanished and herring and smelt have gone north to take their places. Dr. Hoel, geologist of the University of Norway, had just returned from an arctic expedition and reported that he found very little ice and that his soundings to a depth of more than two miles showed the north arm of the Gulf Stream very warm as far up as 81 degrees 21 minutes, nearly 14 degrees inside the arctic circle. An arctic fisherman, he stated, said that it has been growing warmer in the arctic since 1918.” - Commentary on the Book of Mormon, vol. 4  JANNE M. SJODAHL, GEORGE REYNOLDS (General Authority)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-reagan-model-on-climate-change/2015/03/13/4f4182e2-c6a8-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html

Edited March 16, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[Cold Steel]

18 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

The church likes to talk about the "dangers" of marijuana and same sex marriage, what about climate change?  

Humans have never experienced a rapid global climate change warming, never. Earth is warming 50x faster than when it comes out of an ice age. Rapid climate destabilization is what has climate scientists worried. 

The present warming trend began in the early 1800s, before industrialization. There's also evidence that the earth has seen previous warming periods. I have feared that we see an end to the warming and the inevitable return to global cooling. Besides, in a decade I think Fukishima will be much more of a global disaster than global warming.

Besides, the only way the people of the earth can escape disaster is to repent of their sins. No other action can prevent what's coming. That's the primary message of the restored gospel. 

 

Quote

 

A new study out of the United Kingdom predicts the Earth is about to go through a major climatic shift that could mean decades of cooler temperatures and fewer hurricanes hitting the United States. Scientists at the University of Southampton predict that a cooling of the Atlantic Ocean could cool global temperatures a half a degree Celsius and may offer a “brief respite from the persistent rise of global temperatures,” according to their study. This cooling phase in the Atlantic will influence “temperature, rainfall, drought and even the frequency of hurricanes in many regions of the world,” says Dr. Gerard McCarthy. The study’s authors based their results on ocean sensor arrays and 100 years of sea-level data.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/28/study-predicts-decades-of-global-cooling-ahead/#ixzz4322uNW00

 

 

[rodheadlee]

10 hours ago, Ahab said:

Isn't it the same rise for every place the Pacific ocean touches, in the same type of weather at least?  Why specify Alameda, CA?

It's not the same, the earth isn't a perfect round sphere,. The Alameda numbers came from the NOAA website, it's close to where I live. I'll post a link later. I was on the road with a mobile device when I posted that.

 

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414750

The mean sea level trend is 0.67 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.43 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1939 to 2014 which is equivalent to a change of 0.22 feet in 100 years.

 

 

 

This is Honolulu, Hawaii http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=1612340

The mean sea level trend is 1.41 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.22 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1905 to 2014 which is equivalent to a change of 0.46 feet in 100 years.

Edited March 16, 2016 by rodheadlee

[TheSkepticChristian]

1 hour ago, Cold Steel said:

 There's also evidence that the earth has seen previous warming periods.

We all know what, please read the OP. 

1 hour ago, Cold Steel said:

The present warming trend began in the early 1800s, before industrialization.

now that contradicts the "pause" argument that skeptics like to use. 

1 hour ago, Cold Steel said:

A new study out of the United Kingdom predicts the Earth is about to go through a major climatic shift that could mean decades of cooler temperatures and fewer hurricanes hitting the United States. 

You didn't bother to read the Paper. Where did paper talk about decades of cooler global surface temperatures? 

Just because the dailycaller caller reports something, doesn't mean it is accurate. 

Nobody takes the dailycaller caller seriously. 

Edited March 16, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[rodheadlee]

10 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

I am sorry, but that thinking is kind of dangerous. 

CFR

Question: In some cities when it rains 1 inch, why do some parts get flooded.

 

 

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414750

 

The mean sea level trend is 0.67 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.43 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1939 to 2014 which is equivalent to a change of 0.22 feet in 100 years.

You have to take the tide cycle in to account for the flooding of some city streets. The tidal flow and height is different around the world. It's related to the moon cycle and how far from the equator you are as well as access for the water to flow. The further north you go up the Sea of Cortez, the higher the tide It's 4 feet +or- in Mazatlan and 16 feet + or- at the Gonzaga Bay, 24 feet at San Felipe. Atypically you will have 2 high tides and 2 low tides per day. The cycle varies, the last one was 5 hours 51 minutes at my boat. The tide ebbed approx 2 feet, it will rise/flood 2 feet 9 inches on the next 5 hour 8 minute cycle. During certain times of the year we have spring tides/neap tides etc............. I know kind of how it works but I am better at finding out the number I need to know where I am. When it is a spring tide and it rains and the seas are running 20 feet the storm surge floods the streets on a temporary high tide, until the seas abate and the tide ebbs. Many areas of the cities you are talking about are built below mean high tide. 

 

http://www.moonconnection.com/tides.phtml

Edited March 16, 2016 by rodheadlee

[TheSkepticChristian]

8 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

 

The mean sea level trend is 0.67 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.43 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from
1939 to 2014 which is equivalent to a change of 0.22 feet in 100 years.

"If you think about the height of the sea surface like the height of the water in a calm bathtub, then a rise of a few tens of centimeters over a few decades doesn’t sound like much. But sea level doesn’t rise evenly; it piles up more in some places because of natural wind and current patterns. And turbulence matters: Think about that bathtub with a child sloshing around in it. Waves can roll up one side and then the other, sometimes splashing over the brim. The higher the flat-water line, the greater the chance that the water will slosh out of the basin when it is stirred up by storms and winds. Sea level also matters in a horizontal direction. An old rule of thumb is that 1 inch of vertical change in sea level translates into 100 inches of horizontal beach loss on a flat beach or marsh. In this way, a little bit of sea level rise can translate into a lot of water moving inland with storms or abnormally high tides. “Sea level is important because it gradually moves the high-tide line farther up the beach and closer to buildable land,” said John Jaeger, a coastal geologist from the University of Florida. “It also allows storm surges to penetrate farther inland.” " 

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Someone with no agenda needs to prove mankind is the cause first.

It really is irrelevant. We shouldn't need the threat of imminent disaster to just be more responsible. Say no to the extreme global warming credit / treaty schemes but say yes to education, mindful farming, less waste, more conservative energy consumption,  etc ...

[rodheadlee]

23 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

"If you think about the height of the sea surface like the height of the water in a calm bathtub, then a rise of a few tens of centimeters over a few decades doesn’t sound like much. But sea level doesn’t rise evenly; it piles up more in some places because of natural wind and current patterns. And turbulence matters: Think about that bathtub with a child sloshing around in it. Waves can roll up one side and then the other, sometimes splashing over the brim. The higher the flat-water line, the greater the chance that the water will slosh out of the basin when it is stirred up by storms and winds. Sea level also matters in a horizontal direction. An old rule of thumb is that 1 inch of vertical change in sea level translates into 100 inches of horizontal beach loss on a flat beach or marsh. In this way, a little bit of sea level rise can translate into a lot of water moving inland with storms or abnormally high tides. “Sea level is important because it gradually moves the high-tide line farther up the beach and closer to buildable land,” said John Jaeger, a coastal geologist from the University of Florida. “It also allows storm surges to penetrate farther inland.” " 

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

That's why the houses are built on stilts. Tides are not abnormal, they are seasonal and cyclical. People love to ignore the cycles when they sell real estate.

Edited March 16, 2016 by rodheadlee

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Someone with no agenda needs to prove mankind is the cause first.

The scientific community has known about this for decades, and the anthropogenic cause of global warming is not in question.  There are, however, plenty of corporate and political reasons to engage in denial (fossil fuel companies and those they support in govt will lose out if they admit the truth).  So we get disinformation from those with ignoble purposes, leaving the rest of us in the lurch.  Vocal yokels will be the death of us.