Which is it -- global warming, or ice age?

The earth is both heating up and cooling down -- it depends on where and when you are talking about.

The reason has nothing to do with men. The sun has been warming.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1045327.stm

"The sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently — in the last 100 to 150 years,"
from http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040718-115714-6334r.htm

The warming of the sun means the equatorial waters are also heating a bit more. This is driving more CO2 into the atmosphere as well as causing much stronger effects when the cold and warm air currents mix -- thus the prolonged and fierce hurricane/typhoon seasons. The winters will be colder and the summers hotter in a number of areas, although the closer to the equator you are the warmer it will probably be all year round.

There is absolutely nothing we can do about it, Kyoto and all other attempts aside.

 

Isn't God still in control?

Are we leaving Him out of the equation?
God has His time table, and nothing Clinton can do will change it.

 

I think we could easily destroy it to the point where it wouldn't be enjoyable. We overlog. Trees are growing back in the US, but the young, patchy forest is a much different habitat than the dense, vast forests that used to be present. We overgraze and plow up prairies. Prairie land has been destroyed to the point that undamaged stretches of native grasses are rare, and deserts worldwide are growing because of poor land management. We extirpate animals from their original ranges. We import non-native plants and animals, accidentally and on purpose. We overfish. We slash and burn rainforests that have taken centuries to reach their current status.

Do we really want to live in a world where biodiversity has been cut down dramatically and the overwhelmingly most common species in the US are rats, mice, cockroaches, house sparrows, starlings, white-tailed deer, coyotes, red foxes, and feral cats?

 

I feel like I'm talking to myself, but here goes anyway:

1. The sun is heating up. You will see the final result of this in Revelation. We can't stop it.

2. Endangered species are only secondarily a product of man's changing the environment. Natural selection (despite howls from the evolutinists claiming the opposite) deletes from populations. It does not add. Whenever a segment of a population dies off due to environmental stress, a portion of the genetic potential for variation dies with it for that population. Mutations cannot and do not restore that. Long before man started cutting down old growth forests, for example, the spotted owl had 'climbed a fitness peak', meaning that the population had already been through enough times of environmental stress (think volcanoes and earthquakes and such along the Pacific Coast) that only a small group was left and the only place they could live was old growth forests. They have lost the genetic ability to vary beyond that habitat.

This is all part of a world subject to decay due to sin. This is all part of the end times scenario. The world is winding up, folks. For those who have not yet gotten serious about Christ, it's time.

 

"The earth is both heating up and cooling down -- it depends on where and when you are talking about.

The reason has nothing to do with men. The sun has been warming."

Well, that is partially true but it is not the commplete story.

Since the start of the industrial age, the sun has been increasing in intensity. So there is a component of the observed heating that is caused by the sun.

But there are also human influences and other natural influences.

If you look at the various forcings on the climate you will observe a complex picture. The increased solar output has caused an imbalance of about 0.4 W/m^2 at the earth's surface. And there are other natural forcings, such as volcanoes, that cause both climate warming and climate cooling forcings.

Now in contrast to the 0.4 W/m^2 effect of the sun, human activity has caused a 2.3 W/m^2 warming imbalance at the earth's surface. So the human effect is much larger than the solar effect. There are also human activities that lead towards cooling trends as well.

Once all of these various factor are summed, the net forcing on the earth's climate is about 1.0 W/m^2 of warming.

Now I would assert that we have a responsibility to be good stewards of the planet which God has provided. We can do nothing about the natural effects on the climate. But our poor stewardship of the earth has resulted in larger effects than what nature is responsible for. We can change how we are affecting the earth and making those changes will have a bigger impact on the world's climate that the effects from things which we cannot change. And it is in our best long term interest to do so.

Now someone tried to tie this in to young earthism. This has nothing at all to do with YECism. The age of the earth does not matter in the least because we are only interested in the effects since the start of the industrial revolution. The last 150 years are the same regardless of what timescale you use.

Another suggested that we do not need to tread lightly because God put those oil reserves there for our use. Well that may be the case, but that does not mean that we should squander the resource. We should be as careful with it as anyhting else with which we have been entrusted. Consider the parable of the talents. The servant who was a good steward of that with which he was intrusted was called a good and faithful servent while he who squandered the opportunity was called wicked and slothful. We should strive to do better.

Here is my source for the above information.

Hansen, J., Mki. Sato, A. Lacis, R. Ruedy, I. Tegen, and E. Matthews 1998. Perspective: Climate forcings in the industrial era. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 95, 12753-12758.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1998/1998_HansenSatoL.pdf

The paper is short and may be worth a read. If not, at least look at Figure 2 on the second page for a chart of the various climate forcings. BTW, the author is the one who turned me from a global warming denier to a global warming acceptor in the last few years. He has taken some global warming advocates to task for being to aggressive with their presentation of the data. There is also a story making the rounds of NASA trying to censor his views. At least I think it is the same guy.

 

Just as a note: I was not trying to put down good stewardship. I am dedicated to that personally. But all the good stewardship in the world is not going to reverse what God has decreed or what is now happening. Our good stewardship will relieve suffering for some humans and animals -- as many as we can, hopefully. And it will provide a testimony for those who are following the world.

But it will not change the time or the timing.

 

FWIW, there was a recent declaration by a group of Christian leaders signed a declaration saying that we should address global warming. For name recognition purposes, Rick Warren is among those listed.

Here is a link to a story on it. I am frankly too lazy to go find a link to the original right now.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5194527

 

Yup.

 

The meteorite hit is recorded in advance in Rev. 8:8. It will hit the ocean. It is preceded by what may be a series of smaller hits in the preceding verse.

 

So your assertion is that Christians should not get involved with political issues? For most political issues involve items for which a case can be made for different views, for which division along these disparate views are likely and which are not central to spreading the Gospel.

Or is it that you do not think that Christians should be advocates for issues with which you do not agree because of these reasons? If leaders want to advovate positions with which you agree but with which there is not universal agreement among believers, do you think that is good or bad?

 

The way you phrased your statement makes it sound as if you oppose Christians becoming involved in debates where there is not unanimity if it does not directly bear upon the spreading of the gospel. Which does sound unusual for someone posting in a political forum.

My impression was that you made the statement because you personally are against preventing climate change and so it sounded to you like a reasonable statement to make to support your own reasoning for not letting global warming become an issue important to Christians.

My counter would be that while there is not universal agreement, the majority opinion holds that there is warming occurring. If you notice Helen's post, you will see that even some who deny the human influence on the warming recognize that the warming itself is real. And the majority of scientists accept that humans are causing at least some of the warming.

Now if you want to wait for universal agreement on something as complex and chaotic as long term global climate trends, then you will never get it. You will always be able to find some minority opinions counter to the prevailing view.

As far as global warming goes, we have a majority opinion that it is happening. I cannot understand why some would try and divide us by suggesting we should not try and protect this fragile gift from a likely harm with devastating possibilities. There is a cost of action but there is a far higher potential cost of inaction.

 

I for many years have believed in the young earth principal, and Barry and Helen gave an impacting presentation over the course of several weeks in Sunday School, that cemented the Biblical creation account firmly in my mind. There is not a single thing they teach that I don't agree with. Much of it is beyond my comprehension, but, like the Bible there is much to learn from their work. If you are around them very much, you love them. You can't help it.

 

"I don't deny warming may be occuring (although there is evidence to the contrary);"

There are uncertainties in the data. Different people find different degrees of warming and as you point out some even claim a lack of warming. I am choosing to go with the majority opinion that warming is occurring.

"I deny that humans are responsible for it."

This is sort of why I linked the paper I did back on the first page. This is very complex. There are both human and natural forcings and both have effects that push the climate towards both warming and cooling. Again, I choose to go with the majority opinion that some warming is caused by humans.

"The issue has been hijacked by the left for political reasons, and that makes me uncomfortable."

I will agree with that.

Politics is such a funny game. Trying to find the best course of action gets lost in the conflicting agendas of various factions. Cheif among those agendas seems to be getting re-elected. It bothers me that so many important issues come down to near party line votes. Few important issues seem to me to really have such stark dividing lines. Perhaps one problem is that the process we use (primaries) for picking candidates tends to put in office people who are further to the left or the right than the people they represent.

"Remember the 70's, when models were pointing to an opposite conclusion?"

Well I was in kindergarten in 1979 so not so much.

"Everytime man comes to a scientific conclusion about something, along comes evidence and theory that blows the old paradigm out of existence."

Well... That may be a subject for a different debate.

"The Kyoto protocols (which the Senate rejected 98-0) would have devestated our economy for uncertain returns. Notice that even countries who embraced it have failed to meet it's targets in the first year. And it failed to include the largest polluters on the planet (China, India, and other emerging-growth nations).

I am an environmentalist, but I support market-based mechanisms to reduce damage to the environment. History shows over and over that the free market is the best way to grow an economy and sustain desirable outcomes. The high oil prices of the 1970's directly led to increasing efficiency throughout the spectrum of energy use. Government intervention distorts the market, and fails miserably. "

Kyoto was a bad idea. If you agree that there is a problem (the "you" there being the folks who negociated it) then you must include everyone. And I mean right down to the smallest of countries. And definately the giants of China and India.

I am probably coming across as more agressive than I really am. I, too, prefer market based approaches. Cap and trade programs have worked wonders in this country on things like sulfur dioxide emissions. If you pick the point where you want to be and then let the market sort out how to get there, you will end up far better off than a government imposed solution.

I, personally, work for one of the largest burners of coal around. So I have a personal stake in seeing this done right. I work on clean coal technologies and I am currently designing an advanced power plant to be built over the next several years that will use gasification technology.

There is a large, international coal conference that I present at every couple of years. Everyone attends. All the utilities. All the coal producers. All the experimental groups. The government. And looking at it from the inside, industry has already decided that this is something that will be dealt with. There is session after session and paper after paper on how to sequester carbon and how to build more and more efficient power plants. They have even been inviting environmental groups to speak in the plenary sessions the last few years and to discuss with these leaders of industry on how to proceed. Some have come in guns ablazing and telling us how they will sue us all into bankrupcy. But most have been very receptive. I think at last years conference it was a guy from the National Resources Defence Council, a group I consider to be pretty far out there, who came in and had a very open and receptive discussion on how both industry and enviromentalists could work towards common goals. It was the kind of discussion, free from most politics, that I wish could be had on a host of issues beyond climate change. He made his position clear but also made clear that he understands the needs of industry and of the economy.

In my opinion, the answer would lie in a cap and trading system that encompasses all nations. You would set a cap at current levels that would start at some time in the future and you would very slowly bring the cap down until atmospheric levels of CO2 stabilized. Nothing quick. Nothing harsh. You would give the market and the technologies time to come up the answer. Of course I also think you would need to provide some other incentives in the mean time. For example, very slowly push up the mileage standards for automobiles. My favorite is a tax on cars that fall short. Maybe 1% for every mile per gallon below the standard. So if you think you need to have a Hummer to take the kids to soccer, fine. But there is a price to be paid. (I have a Honda Pilot, myself, so don't take it as a general SUV swipe.)

"I'm not the best of writers, being substantially impaired by narcotics. Perhaps that contributes to misunderstanding what I write and my phrasing. Debate is a fundamental foundation of liberty, and I enjoy it. So, I apologize for giving you false impressions."

Look. I think I came across as a bit harsh. It was unintended. I'm sorry for that. It seemed to me that you were using an isolated reason for saying that we shouldn't bring this issue to the front that was not being applied to other issues. I think we both understand where you are coming from. Debate is great. I am glad we have the freedom to do so. I took no offense and I hope that you take none from me. We may not be as far apart as it might have seemed.