Climate Change is false doctrine

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, janderich said:

1. Thousands upon thousands of well respected scientists the world over have been involved in an elaborate scheme to prove something that is in fact not true. 

Wait scientists also say Evolution is true, but general authorities teach us that Adam and Eve are our first parents.

I think I need to clear my mind. 

Edited February 3, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[longview]

21 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

longview you really have to help me now. I honestly don't know what to think anymore

For the real story, read Adrian Vance column detailing the corruption occurring in academia:   https://adrianvance.blogspot.com/2017/04/greatest-story-never-told.html

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Wait scientists also say Evolution is true, but general authorities teach us that Adam and Eve are our first parents.

I think I need to clear my mind. 

May I suggest that both can be true?

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Did the spirit tell you climate change is a threat?

I am not entitled to receive revelation for other people.

That said, yes. I was told to support the cause of restraining pollution. I am pretty sure it is about climate change. If not, and we do clean up the air and find out that climate change is not a threat (which I do not believe) what will the reaction be?

Something like: "Oh crap, we wasted our time cleaning up the air to make the earth a more pleasant place to live."

[kiwi57]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I am not entitled to receive revelation for other people.

That said, yes. I was told to support the cause of restraining pollution. I am pretty sure it is about climate change. If not, and we do clean up the air and find out that climate change is not a threat (which I do not believe) what will the reaction be?

Something like: "Oh crap, we wasted our time cleaning up the air to make the earth a more pleasant place to live."

Look, if you're going to plagiarise my material (which I had already plagiarised) then please give credit where it isn't due.

[janderich]

9 hours ago, longview said:

1.  a CO2 molecule has only a limited capacity for retaining heat.  The excess is radiated out to space.  CO2 is a trace element in the atmosphere (only between 300 to 400 ppm).  Water vapor is many times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 per molecule but we do not see runaway effects from this.  This despite H2O gas being much more voluminous than CO2.

2.  the only concern should be pollution and smog in metro areas.  Nature has belched massive volumes of CO2 into the atmosphere over the years.  A few events has put out greater amounts of CO2 than 10 year accumulation of man-caused CO2.

3.  not really.  CO2 is a natural and essential part of ecosystem.  It is continually recycled between plants and animals.  The greatest determinant of climate is Solar output (sometimes measured with sunspot activity) and orbital positions.  When sunspot activity increases, not only is Earth warmed but all the other planets in the system is warming noticeably.  This you cannot blame on AGW.

1. It is true that there is only about 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is also true that water vapor contributes more to the "greenhouse effect". But the reason water vapor is not the driving factor is because it cycles in and out of the atmosphere very quickly through evaporation on one end and rain and snow on the other and is largely dependent on temperature. CO2 on the other hand remains in the atmosphere for decades and even centuries. So, if CO2 raises the temperature slightly then the atmosphere can handle more water vapor, which then traps more heat. In short, water vapor amplifies climate change but does not cause it. 

2. Normal volcanic activity does not compare with the amount of CO2 emitted by humans. Volcanic emissions amount to about 65 - 300 million tons of CO2 per year. Humans emit between 20 - 34 billion tons per year (see https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/ as a point to start your investigation). There have been very rare occasions where more CO2 was belched into the air but these are extinction level events. 

3. Solar output is a significant factor in the earths temperature. However, solar activity has been down over the last 35 years so it cannot be the main cause of the temperature increase. 

Edited February 3, 2018 by janderich

[janderich]

8 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Wait scientists also say Evolution is true, but general authorities teach us that Adam and Eve are our first parents.

I think I need to clear my mind. 

You would need a new thread to discuss this topic in any detail. 

[longview]

5 hours ago, janderich said:

1. It is true that there is only about 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is also true that water vapor contributes more to the "greenhouse effect". But the reason water vapor is not the driving factor is because it cycles in and out of the atmosphere very quickly through evaporation on one end and rain and snow on the other and is largely dependent on temperature. CO2 on the other hand remains in the atmosphere for decades and even centuries. So, if CO2 raises the temperature slightly then the atmosphere can handle more water vapor, which then traps more heat. In short, water vapor amplifies climate change but does not cause it. 

2. Normal volcanic activity does not compare with the amount of CO2 emitted by humans. Volcanic emissions amount to about 65 - 300 million tons of CO2 per year. Humans emit between 20 - 34 billion tons per year (see https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/ as a point to start your investigation). There have been very rare occasions where more CO2 was belched into the air but these are extinction level events. 

3. Solar output is a significant factor in the earths temperature. However, solar activity has been down over the last 35 years so it cannot be the main cause of the temperature increase. 

1.  Vapor does not always "cycle in and out very quickly."  Parts of clouds vary greatly in persisting in the atmosphere, circulating randomly due to effects of  updrafts, Coriolis effect, jet streams, etc.  Some will move to polar regions and add to the ice pack.  Some will circulate to equatorial regions to get heated further (or drop down in torrential rains depending on certain factors).  Yet we do not see equatorial clouds have runaway effects of overheating.

CO2 remains in the atmosphere for decades and even centuries?  Ridiculous statement.   CO2 is a diffuse gas.  It does NOT stick to the atmosphere like glue.  Not only does CO2 cycle between plants and animals, there are continual transfers to shellfish and limestone formations.  Gaia is a self regulating system.

2.  Not true.  According to Professor Ian Plimer: "Here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland .. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just four days negated every effort man has made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet."   . . .  "When the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it produced more CO2 for the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in our last 150 years of burning stuff on the planet.  Did the temperature race up several degrees per the computer models?  No, it declined two degrees which is in keeping with the Le Chatelier Principle, a foundation in the chemistry and physics no longer taught in the schools!  We wonder why?   Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year and not only wiped out everything man had tried to do, but increased the CO2 in the air from 280 parts per million to 380 all by itself.  Did you read about this in any major media publication or here of it in any major media broadcast?  No."

There have been plenty of "major" belching of volcanic gasses in the past many centuries.   But NONE were "extinction events."

3.  See https://adrianvance.blogspot.com/2010/05/ice-age-coming.html?q=CO2+cycle

"The head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia Habibullo Abdussamatov, speaking at the Heartland Institute Fourth Annual International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago warned that we will be in “a little ice age” after 2014."

So yes, there is a correlation in declining temperatures.  AND it is due to lower solar activity as YOU pointed out!

 

A civil and thoughtful thread on a politically charged topic must be a first on this board. It has been refreshing to watch it. - Moderators

[SamuelTheLamanite]

18 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

May I suggest that both can be true?

I am so confused right now

9 hours ago, longview said:

Not true.  According to Professor Ian Plimer: "Here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland .. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just four days negated every effort man has made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet."   . . .  "When the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it produced more CO2 for the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in our last 150 years of burning stuff on the planet.  Did the temperature race up several degrees per the computer models?  No, it declined two degrees which is in keeping with the Le Chatelier Principle, a foundation in the chemistry and physics no longer taught in the schools!  We wonder why?   Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year and not only wiped out everything man had tried to do, but increased the CO2 in the air from 280 parts per million to 380 all by itself.  Did you read about this in any major media publication or here of it in any major media broadcast?  No."

Impressive. Can you please share the source?

9 hours ago, longview said:

CO2 remains in the atmosphere for decades and even centuries?  Ridiculous statement.   CO2 is a diffuse gas.  It does NOT stick to the atmosphere like glue.  Not only does CO2 cycle between plants and animals, there are continual transfers to shellfish and limestone formations.  Gaia is a self regulating system.

Of course! all we need is more plants and animals to absorb all the CO2 from the atmosphere. Where do you learn all this? Anyways,  well done my brother longview

Edited February 4, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

14 hours ago, janderich said:

1. It is true that there is only about 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is also true that water vapor contributes more to the "greenhouse effect". But the reason water vapor is not the driving factor is because it cycles in and out of the atmosphere very quickly through evaporation on one end and rain and snow on the other and is largely dependent on temperature. CO2 on the other hand remains in the atmosphere for decades and even centuries. So, if CO2 raises the temperature slightly then the atmosphere can handle more water vapor, which then traps more heat. In short, water vapor amplifies climate change but does not cause it. 

2. Normal volcanic activity does not compare with the amount of CO2 emitted by humans. Volcanic emissions amount to about 65 - 300 million tons of CO2 per year. Humans emit between 20 - 34 billion tons per year (see https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/ as a point to start your investigation). There have been very rare occasions where more CO2 was belched into the air but these are extinction level events. 

3. Solar output is a significant factor in the earths temperature. However, solar activity has been down over the last 35 years so it cannot be the main cause of the temperature increase. 

You keep making a lot of sense. You are tempting me to convert to the climate change hypothesis. However, longview is making interesting points too. All we need to solve the CO2 problem is more plants.

Edited February 4, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[longview]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Impressive. Can you please share the source?

https://adrianvance.blogspot.com/2014/06/from-where-does-co2-come.html

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Of course! all we need is more plants and animals to absorb all the CO2 from the atmosphere. Where do you learn all this? Anyways,  well done my brother longview

Thank you.   Adrian Vance is a great source (see link above).  He is a very well trained and knowledgeable educator, technician and presenter.  Just type in the search bar (top right).  He even has a small experiment using two soda bottles where you can make precise measurements in your home that explain the effects of CO2.

My favorites sites to visit include www.frontpagemag.com (David Horowitz documents the corrosive effects of political indoctrination in K thru 12 on up to universities) and www.freerepublic.com (a discussion board on the topics of the day).  My perspective is grounded in bedrock principled conservatism (yes, I do believe God has a divine destiny for the Constitutional Republic of the United States).

Edited February 4, 2018 by longview

[janderich]

9 hours ago, longview said:

1.  Vapor does not always "cycle in and out very quickly."  Parts of clouds vary greatly in persisting in the atmosphere, circulating randomly due to effects of  updrafts, Coriolis effect, jet streams, etc.  Some will move to polar regions and add to the ice pack.  Some will circulate to equatorial regions to get heated further (or drop down in torrential rains depending on certain factors).  Yet we do not see equatorial clouds have runaway effects of overheating.

CO2 remains in the atmosphere for decades and even centuries?  Ridiculous statement.   CO2 is a diffuse gas.  It does NOT stick to the atmosphere like glue.  Not only does CO2 cycle between plants and animals, there are continual transfers to shellfish and limestone formations.  Gaia is a self regulating system.

Compared to CO2 water vapor cycles quickly through the atmosphere. Water vapor stays in the atmosphere only about 9 days on average (https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/water-cycle). This average accounts for jet streams, clouds, etc. CO2 on the other hand stays in the atmosphere 3 - 4 years on average. 

Now, when I say that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for decades and even centuries I am not talking about an individual molecule, but rather how long the excess CO2 would stay in the atmosphere if we stopped emitting extra carbon. Scientists estimate it would take about 50 years to drop down to to pre-industrial levels if carbon cycles out of the atmosphere at the current rate. However, it is unlikely to stay at the same sink rate. Rather, the cycle would likely slow down such that a percentage of extra carbon would stay in the atmosphere for not just decades but centuries (see https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2010/12/common-climate-misconceptions-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/). 

9 hours ago, longview said:

2.  Not true.  According to Professor Ian Plimer: "Here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland .. Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just four days negated every effort man has made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet."   . . .  "When the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it produced more CO2 for the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in our last 150 years of burning stuff on the planet.  Did the temperature race up several degrees per the computer models?  No, it declined two degrees which is in keeping with the Le Chatelier Principle, a foundation in the chemistry and physics no longer taught in the schools!  We wonder why?   Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year and not only wiped out everything man had tried to do, but increased the CO2 in the air from 280 parts per million to 380 all by itself.  Did you read about this in any major media publication or here of it in any major media broadcast?  No."

There have been plenty of "major" belching of volcanic gasses in the past many centuries.   But NONE were "extinction events."

This "data" about the Iceland volcano emitting as much as 5 years worth of human CO2 emissions is false. This has been debunked multiple times.

Quote

For example, "Curtin University of Technology Professor Fred Jourdan told ABC News that the eruption in Iceland emitted a small amount of carbon dioxide. “In fact, most recent estimates show that the flights that were grounded by the eruption would have emitted about twice as much carbon dioxide as the volcano itself,” Jourdan said. A quick glance at scientific data on carbon dioxide emissions further disproves this eRumor. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), humans reduced carbon dioxide emissions by about 11 percent, or 806 million metric tons, in the five-year period from 2007 to 2012. The largest volcanic eruption of the 20th century, meanwhile, which was larger than the eruption in Iceland, emitted 42 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, according to ABC News. (https://www.truthorfiction.com/plimer-volcano/) See Snoops (https://www.snopes.com/volcano-carbon-emissions/) and this from the Guardian for just a few references (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/apr/21/iceland-volcano-climate-sceptics).

Regarding volcanoes and extinction level events: 

Quote

It’s long been known that massive increases in emission of CO2 from volcanoes, associated with the opening of the Atlantic Ocean in the end-Triassic Period, set off a shift in state of the climate which caused global mass extinction of species, eliminating about 34% of genera. The extinction created ecological niches which allowed the rise of dinosaurs during the Triassic, about 250-200 million years ago. (https://theconversation.com/another-link-between-co2-and-mass-extinctions-of-species-12906)

Quote

Earth’s largest ever extinction ever may have been caused by massive volcanic eruptions in Siberia, according to new research. ...But it was the huge volume of sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere that caused the planet to become close to uninhabitable. First Earth cooled by a few degrees before warming it by about 14 degrees Fahrenheit and triggering acid rain. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-great-dying-earth-biggest-mass-extinction-siberia-volcanoes-russia-nickel-science-study-a7983656.html)

9 hours ago, longview said:

3.  See https://adrianvance.blogspot.com/2010/05/ice-age-coming.html?q=CO2+cycle

"The head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia Habibullo Abdussamatov, speaking at the Heartland Institute Fourth Annual International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago warned that we will be in “a little ice age” after 2014."

So yes, there is a correlation in declining temperatures.  AND it is due to lower solar activity as YOU pointed out!

The scientific community has rejected Abdussamatov's comments. Here is a summary from Wikipedia: 

Quote

Abdussamatov presented papers at the fourth and ninth International Conference on Climate Change,[6] events sponsored by the Heartland Institute and, according to the organiser, bringing together "think tank cosponsors and [...] scientists who dispute the claim that the science is settled".[7] Abdussamatov claims that "global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy—almost throughout the last century—growth in its intensity."[8] This view contradicts the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change.[9][10][11] He has asserted that "parallel global warmings—observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth—can only be a straightline consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."[12] This claim has not been accepted by the broader scientific community. Some of Abdussamatov's opponents have stated that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations" and that it "doesn't make physical sense."[13][14]

Abdussamatov holds that Earth's atmosphere does not produce a greenhouse effect, stating "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated."[15] He further states that "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." [15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khabibullo_Abdussamatov)

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Thank you.   Adrian Vance is a great source (see link above).  He is a very well trained and knowledgeable educator, technician and presenter.  Just type in the search bar (top right).  He even has a small experiment using two soda bottles where you can make precise measurements in your home that explain the effects of CO2.

tell me more

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

You keep making a lot of sense. You are tempting me to convert to the climate change hypothesis. However, longview is making interesting points too. All we need to solve the CO2 problem is more plants.

That volcanos pour out more CO2 than humanity does is a repeatedly debunked myth. We can measure CO2 levels in the distant past using ice core studies. There have been extinction level volcano events that released a lot of CO2 and other stuff into the atmosphere but if that happens again we are all going to die and worrying about the climate would be a silly idea. Climate change deniers use those volcanic events to point out we are doing nothing.

These events did cause warming in the short term but part of it was cancelled by the sulfur dioxide that came out with it. In fact the cooling of the sulfur dioxide meant the volcano cooled the earth more than the CO2 heated it. Pumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to counter our CO2 emissions has been considered but it has its own problems like an increase in acid rain.

Plimer’s comment in his book about how much CO2 humanity has put out compared to a volcanic cough is horrible science. What is a cough?

To put it in perspective the Saint Helens eruption in 1980 put 10 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere over a period of 9 hours. Humanity puts out that much CO2 every 2.5 hours around the clock. Even if a new similar volcanic event took place every 9 hours in perpetuity (this does not happen, they are roughly once a decade events) we would still be outpacing volcanos.

Or as Snopes suggested as a correction to Plimer’s badly sourced and maddeningly vague book:

“3500 Mount St Helens-scale volcanic ‘coughs’ in a single day might be able to produce as much CO2 as humans have added to the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels to date”

Such a quote would not rally the climate change deniers in quite the same way.

https://www.snopes.com/volcano-carbon-emissions/

 

[kiwi57]

On 2/3/2018 at 5:50 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Wait scientists also say Evolution is true, but general authorities teach us that Adam and Eve are our first parents.

I think I need to clear my mind. 

Sam, here's the thing: we almost never see specific revelation describing the nuts and bolts of how things work. I believe that that is because the Lord has equipped us with the intellectual tools to figure those things out. The technique that we've developed for this purpose is science; and it is very good at what it does.

OTOH, science is completely unable to tell us why the world is the way it is. That isn't to say that some scientists (and pundits) don't try, but as soon as their attempted explanations get down to specifics, they inevitably turn into discussions of how things work again. Which is okay; how things work is the proper domain of science. The purpose behind it all, and what we are supposed to do to accomplish that purpose, comes from the mind of God, is undiscoverable by science, and is the proper domain of revelation.

The biggest problem with the climate change debate, in my view, is not that it impacts the claims of revealed religion - it really doesn't - but because it has been co-opted for political and ideological purposes. If it wasn't for the attempts of some to use climate change as a rallying cry for the left and a club with which to beat the right, I doubt there'd be much of a battle about it at all.

I hope this helps.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Sam, here's the thing: we almost never see specific revelation describing the nuts and bolts of how things work.

Do you believe climate change in a threat? LDS leaders teach, "the Holy Ghost can help you by warning you in advance of physical and spiritual dangers". Why shouldn't we expect revelation warning us about CO2 emissions? 

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

 I believe that that is because the Lord has equipped us with the intellectual tools to figure those things out

According to secular anti-church newspaper

"The Yale Climate Opinion Map, a public-opinion project to which Howe contributes, found that 62 percent of Utahns believe climate change is happening, compared to a nationwide average of 70 percent. Beehive State residents were also significantly less likely to believe that global warming was caused mostly by human activities, at 43 percent. Those numbers, according to the Yale map project, would place Utah among states whose residents are the least-likely Americans to believe in human-caused climate change. Only Wyoming has a lower percentage of residents who say they believe human activity is the major contributor to global warming." https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2017/10/28/are-you-a-utahn-who-believes-in-climate-change-youre-not-alone/

So if you are right about climate change, then it means we need a revelation.

[Guest]

Despite the fact that God does have power over the Earth. Despite the fact scriptures make this plain. Also, despite the fact that the Earth has the ability to heal itself, does not release us from the commandment given in scripture to be good "Stewards" of the Earth. Although some have tried to treat "climate change" as a religion or doctrine, does not make it either. This I do know, Earth is our home, and it needs our care, but not fanatics, who wish to force others to live in a "Stone Age" like manner and cause all to bend to their will. We also don't need to be lead into fear by those who spend their days and nights, storing up food and ammo, waiting for the "Zombie Apocalypse".  I have a friend who now has a ten year supply of food and ammo, and is working toward building and stocking his own bunker.  No Joke! 

[longview]

22 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

tell me more

Do you want to try the two bottle experiment?   Here is the link:  https://adrianvance.blogspot.com/2016/09/magic-bottles.html

"Warmist Dr. Joe Romm claims atmospheric CO2 will rise to 910 parts per million, ppm, by the year 2100 where today it is 390 ppm, a 233% increase in 84 years, and turn America intoDeath Valley.  We simulate this with two 2.5 liter plastic bottles for a shocking outcome costing less than $10, with no million Dollar grant or trips to exotic places to read papers, eat truffles and drink Champaign on your Federal tax Dollars."

"We set up the two bottles, one with water alone, labeled "2016 AD" air with 390 ppm of CO2 naturally and "2100 AD" with 910 ppm artificially.  This can be done outside, but we favor a window sill as these bottles are easily tipped by a breeze and window glass does not block infrared, IR, energy. When the sun is low very little IR comes through all the air. After 10 AM, when the sun angle is above 45 degrees, IR passes through less air and the glass where it cannot when the angle is less than 45 degrees.  Be sure the thermometers are shaded from direct sun with foil "hats," only reading the temperature of the air in the flasks."

"According to Dr. Romm the 2100 AD bottle will get hot, going over 40 Celsius degrees, 104 Fahrenheit!  But what happens?  The 2100 AD bottle tracks precisely with the 2016 bottle air with less CO2 in it!  The CO2 was an insignificant component of the atmosphere at 390 PPM and it would be at 910 PPM.  It is just that simple.  As we have seen, "warmists" are prone to overplay everything from polar bear deaths to all the ice melting at the poles when there are more polar bears than ever in history, probably because they are getting fat on the Five Star garbage left by warmist scientists."

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, longview said:

Do you want to try the two bottle experiment?   Here is the link:  https://adrianvance.blogspot.com/2016/09/magic-bottles.html

"Warmist Dr. Joe Romm claims atmospheric CO2 will rise to 910 parts per million, ppm, by the year 2100 where today it is 390 ppm, a 233% increase in 84 years, and turn America intoDeath Valley.  We simulate this with two 2.5 liter plastic bottles for a shocking outcome costing less than $10, with no million Dollar grant or trips to exotic places to read papers, eat truffles and drink Champaign on your Federal tax Dollars."

"We set up the two bottles, one with water alone, labeled "2016 AD" air with 390 ppm of CO2 naturally and "2100 AD" with 910 ppm artificially.  This can be done outside, but we favor a window sill as these bottles are easily tipped by a breeze and window glass does not block infrared, IR, energy. When the sun is low very little IR comes through all the air. After 10 AM, when the sun angle is above 45 degrees, IR passes through less air and the glass where it cannot when the angle is less than 45 degrees.  Be sure the thermometers are shaded from direct sun with foil "hats," only reading the temperature of the air in the flasks."

"According to Dr. Romm the 2100 AD bottle will get hot, going over 40 Celsius degrees, 104 Fahrenheit!  But what happens?  The 2100 AD bottle tracks precisely with the 2016 bottle air with less CO2 in it!  The CO2 was an insignificant component of the atmosphere at 390 PPM and it would be at 910 PPM.  It is just that simple.  As we have seen, "warmists" are prone to overplay everything from polar bear deaths to all the ice melting at the poles when there are more polar bears than ever in history, probably because they are getting fat on the Five Star garbage left by warmist scientists."

Yes, because a small bottle with CO2 evenly distributed throughout is completely the same as our much more complex atmosphere. A bottle with evenly distributed CO2 pressure would not create the greenhouse effect. I also enjoy that they did the test for half a day (overnight) as if one day is analogous to how climate change works and doing it at night when the sun is not shining is a master stroke of shooting yourself in the foot. It is difficult to conceive of a more ignorant and incompetent experiment.

This is like an elementary school kid’s science project. And a bad one at that.

Edit: And the polar bear “growth” is based on a pretty wild guess by a Russian scientist in the 60s of their numbers. Climate change deniers take that very low population guess as gospel and then compare it to our more accurate numbers today to say that the population has grown. There was believed to be a short term increase in polar bear numbers in the 60s and 70s because nations curtailed hunting them (particularly the unsporting aerial hunting).

The current data suggests polar bear numbers have declined by around 40% though it is hard to track numbers in such a harsh climate. Observed polar bear cubs are smaller and polar bear hunting has become more energy intensive.

Polar bears are not the real problem. While it would be a shame if they all died the Arctic ecosystem is not critical to human life. It does seem to be ringing warning bells about effects we will endure if the change continues. It is too late to stop it now but we can mitigate but all indications are we will not.

 

Edited February 5, 2018 by The Nehor

[kiwi57]

9 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Do you believe climate change in a threat? LDS leaders teach, "the Holy Ghost can help you by warning you in advance of physical and spiritual dangers". Why shouldn't we expect revelation warning us about CO2 emissions?

Like I said: we have the knowledge, the equipment and the willingness to find out without revelation.

Speaking of Revelation, have you read about the Eschatological event sometimes described as "The Great Overburn?"

9 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

According to secular anti-church newspaper

"The Yale Climate Opinion Map, a public-opinion project to which Howe contributes, found that 62 percent of Utahns believe climate change is happening, compared to a nationwide average of 70 percent. Beehive State residents were also significantly less likely to believe that global warming was caused mostly by human activities, at 43 percent. Those numbers, according to the Yale map project, would place Utah among states whose residents are the least-likely Americans to believe in human-caused climate change. Only Wyoming has a lower percentage of residents who say they believe human activity is the major contributor to global warming." https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2017/10/28/are-you-a-utahn-who-believes-in-climate-change-youre-not-alone/

So if you are right about climate change, then it means we need a revelation.

Actually when it comes to climate change, I don't even claim to have a particularly well-informed opinion. I'm relying upon what looks to me like pretty solid science from people with the right kind of credentials. But I flatly don't agree that we need a revelation. I believe we need more and better science.

I also believe that, regardless of what the climate is doing, we need to pollute less.

 

[janderich]

13 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Do you believe climate change in a threat? LDS leaders teach, "the Holy Ghost can help you by warning you in advance of physical and spiritual dangers". Why shouldn't we expect revelation warning us about CO2 emissions? 

Must the Lord provide revelation through his prophets and in no other way? Can he not speak to many people and pour down knowledge from heavens? If he given knowledge through science then act on it accordingly.

Despite all of Longview's comments he has not been able to change these basic facts:  

1. Carbon dioxide is a gas that traps heat and makes the planet warmer.
2. The use of fossil fuels is adding more of this gas to the Earth's atmosphere.
3. We should expect rising carbon dioxide concentrations to warm our planet. 

The evidence is all around us, the planet is warming, the polar ice caps are shrinking, sea level is rising, the ocean is acidifying. How much more evidence do we need? 

Now, this is not a call to be an alarmist but it is a call to recognize the truth. Don't wait for a prophet to speak before you act. The Spirit of the Lord is in you, pray to him and obtain revelation for yourself, for it is not meet that he should command in all things. 

[longview]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, because a small bottle with CO2 evenly distributed throughout is completely the same as our much more complex atmosphere.

Of course it is complex.  The atmosphere is chaotic.  The beauty of the experiment is to confine and isolate components of air and water "liquid/vapor" and sunlight so that we can make direct and unequivocal measurements.

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

A bottle with evenly distributed CO2 pressure would not create the greenhouse effect

This is an irrational statement.  The "pressure" is NOT the issue.  The quantity we are looking at is the temperature.  You would expect temperature to rise in BOTH bottles.  The question is:  how much Infrared energy is captured/retained by either bottles.  The components will retain the energy up to a point and the remainder will radiate out the bottles.  If the bottle were to bulge due to increased heat/pressure, then it should be noted.

We should understand that the atmosphere does not "confine" to a fixed location.  Real greenhouses DO confine gasses and allow for buildup of heat so that gardens can grow, even in the middle of winter.  It needs to be confined because breezes will whisk away the warmth and cause the garden to freeze.  So the bottles are ideal for retaining any heat that are building up.  Any unretained infrared light will pass through the transparent bottles.

Keep in mind that infrared energy striking a molecule causes it to vibrate more.   We see it as becoming hotter.  But there is a limit to how much infrared light a molecule can absorb.  The remainder simply radiates away.  It is known that a H2O molecule can retain many times the energy than a CO2 molecule.

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I also enjoy that they did the test for half a day (overnight) as if one day is analogous to how climate change works and doing it at night when the sun is not shining is a master stroke of shooting yourself in the foot.

You have a problem with reading comprehension or you simply skimmed through the article.  The reason the author waited overnight was to allow the CO2 ingredient to react completely with water and air in the bottle (the one labelled 2100 AD).  The experiment begins at sunrise.  The readings are to be done hourly throughout the day.  This what he said:

"Put the cap with thermometer on and let it sit overnight to react fully to create the Romm 910 ppm CO2 atmosphere of 2100 AD.  Put the two bottles in a window sill and record their temperatures each hour.  What do we see? According to Dr. Romm the 2100 AD bottle will get hot, going over 40 Celsius degrees, 104 Fahrenheit!  But what happens?  The 2100 AD bottle tracks precisely with the 2016 bottle air with less CO2 in it!  The CO2 was an insignificant component of the atmosphere at 390 PPM and it would be at 910 PPM.  It is just that simple.  As we have seen, "warmists" are prone to overplay everything from polar bear deaths to all the ice melting at the poles when there are more polar bears than ever in history, probably because they are getting fat on the Five Star garbage left by warmist scientists . . .The two temperatures rise as the sun elevates and fall slowly after noon until 3 PM, then fall quickly as solar radiation passes through more atmosphere."

Then the author tried the One Percent Test as follows:

"One percent is 10,000 parts per million, ppm, which shows the real effect of CO2 in the atmosphere and by having a "control" bottle tracking ordinary air over water we will see that it is a cooling component . . . If Dr. Romm were correct the air in the "1%" bottle would heat faster and more than the "0.04%" flask, perhaps going over 40º C by noon, but it declines!  This dashes all alarmist claims.  Without them they will get no grants, book contracts, TV appearances or tenure. When realized it will kill the gravy train of academia.  This is an undeniable fact!  Many of academia feel they are entitled to wealth and fame because they are "smart."

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This is like an elementary school kid’s science project. And a bad one at that.

Truth is truth.   Why are you disparaging any kind of experiments?  We need to ask the questions and try to understand the fundamentals.  He concludes:

"Virtually everything written and published about "global warming" and/or "climate change" has been fraudulent and done by those seeking political power, government grants, high-paying government jobs or academic tenure as the colleges and universities are dependent on Federal money.  It is just another tale of corruption in America and you can prove it with a two soda bottles, a box of baking soda, a bottle of vinegar and one medicine dropper."

[MiserereNobis]

23 minutes ago, longview said:

"Virtually everything written and published about "global warming" and/or "climate change" has been fraudulent and done by those seeking political power, government grants, high-paying government jobs or academic tenure as the colleges and universities are dependent on Federal money.  It is just another tale of corruption in America and you can prove it with a two soda bottles, a box of baking soda, a bottle of vinegar and one medicine dropper."

This sums up the problem with the anti-global warming evidence and arguments your side gives. There are way more sources that debunk your stance than there are that support it. Just a quick perusal of this thread shows this. You are relying extensively on a "blogspot.com" source while the other side is throwing in actual academic, government, and scientific sources. But you don't accept that because of what I quoted above.

It is the logical problem at the heart of all conspiracy theories, which is this: the more evidence there is that the theory is false is translated to mean more evidence of a conspiracy. This thinking has enabled you to justify tossing out all of the science done on the issue and relying instead on fringe thinkers.

On the other hand, I guess Agent Mulder was right in the end

 

 

[longview]

10 hours ago, janderich said:

Despite all of Longview's comments he has not been able to change these basic facts:  

I have no desire or intention to change "facts" except to call into question whether a bureaucrat or a professor has been corrupted by government grants to demonize CO2 as a pollutant.  Thereby panicking the populace into accepting onerous taxation and ruinous regulations resulting in a more massive government (which is the REAL agenda).  The "narrative" has proven to be flimsy and WRONG on every "prediction" over the last 30 or 40 years.

10 hours ago, janderich said:

1.  Carbon dioxide is a gas that traps heat and makes the planet warmer.

1.  You have not responded to the fact that CO2 has limited capacity for absorbing infrared energy.  The remainder is radiated out to space.  You have not responded to fact that CO2 is continually absorbed back to the environment, such as animal to plant, air to sea to shellfish to limestone formations, etc, etc.   Liberals love the idea of a Gaia overseeing the balance of nature but keep ignoring the fact that CO2 is a natural part of the ecosystem and is continually recycled.

10 hours ago, janderich said:

2. The use of fossil fuels is adding more of this gas to the Earth's atmosphere.

2.  At only an infinitesimal fraction of natural process.  Even if there was an increase of CO2 to 600 ppm, there would be no catastrophic effect or runaway climate disasters.  It has been stated that there will be greater growth of plant life and diversity.   Which is a GOOD thing!

10 hours ago, janderich said:

3. We should expect rising carbon dioxide concentrations to warm our planet. 

3.  Not according to the two bottle experiment.  See my post previous to this one.  It may actually turn out that an increase of CO2 may result in more cooling!  On one hand, plants will benefit from "breathing" more CO2.  On the other hand, more cooling will shorten the growing seasons for some plants.

[Teancum]

On 1/26/2018 at 1:27 AM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

The other thread is now closed and I didn't get the chance to share my views. I believe man cannot change the climate because D&C 88:13 teaches us the light of Christ governs all things, not men. The idea of climate change contradicts Mormon doctrine.

The scriptures teach in the last days we are going to see a lot of corruption and false doctrines. The scriptures are already being fulfilled. The scientists are not allowed to question man-made climate change without losing big federal grants. The federal government pays NASA millions of dollars to cherry pick the data.

Fortunately we non-scientists don't receive grants and we can do research for ourselves. Climate Science isn't complicated at all, with a quick google search you can find many temperature graphs that show no warming. It just very simple. In fact 2016 was warmer than 2017 so that means the Earth is not warming.

People really need to start questioning the climate science research, with a great invention called Google we can quickly learn that there is no evidence for man-made climate change. You can also find New York Times and CNN articles predicting the end of snow, yet we see a lot of snow.

I believe God gave us carbon to use it, the industrial revolution has been a blessing for humanity and the church. Thanks to the industrial revolution we have computers that allow us to do genealogy much easier.  If the industrial revolution is a blessing from God it means the earth can't be warming. Why would God inspire something that is harmful to the planet?

There are Youtube videos from renown scientists like Tim Ball or Richard Lindzen. Richard Lindzen is a professor at MIT.  It is true twenty-two other MIT professors wrote a letter criticizing Lindzen, but that was only because the federal government paid them a lot of money to do it, it's all just a conspiracy.

Lastly, if man-made climate change was real and a threat to humanity our prophets would have been warning us already. Our prophets warn us about financial crisis, natural disasters, violence, but nothing on climate change. In climate science there aren't many variables to take into account, for me it is just simple logic.  Just look at your window, look outside it is freezing. That is all I have to say. Thank You for reading.

This is a fine example of the dangers of faith held non evidence held beliefs.  Such views, which are held by far to many, are viewed to trump scientific evidence to the contrary.

This childish view will doom our world, our planet and our species.