Global Warming makes sense to me. As a science aficionado, I recognize the following truths:

--Global warming heats the planet, but not necessarily evenly.
--Warmer air holds more water.
--Warmer seas yield more evaporation.
--Warmer atmosphere creates stronger drafts.
--With the Coriolis effect, stronger drafts means stronger winds.
--Stronger winds means stronger jet streams.
--Jet streams can help break up cyclonic activity (typhoons/hurricanes).
--However, cyclonic activity starts nearer the equator, not near the jet streams.
--Therefore, depending on a variety of factors, global warming will tend toward the following symptoms:

1) Increased precipitation (more evaporation, winds push it overland)
2) Increased storm intensities (tornadoes, cyclonic storms)
3) Increased storm frequencies

Additionally, as with anything else which is becoming unbalanced, the swings of the weather pendulum will be wilder. This means that at the same time as heat-related records are being made, records of freezing temps may also be expected. This will be partly geographic shifts, and partly just plain wilder swings.

I also believe God made our earth with many checks and balances to help temper any sort of abuse it might receive, so these changes would not be expected to appear precipitously, but slowly build over time.

It seems to me we've been having more and more frequent and intense hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones. Where I am, we certainly get our share.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Increased precipitation, but not everywhere. Australia, India and the southern mediteranean countries for instance are suffering draughts due to less precipitation. Other places get too much and suffer bad flooding as a result, such as China as a recent example. Note that these large countries get the results in uneven measure aswell.

To make bad things worse, with the melting glaciers, rivers which today provide water for bilions of people may dry up within a forseable future causing massive water migration.

Oh, don't misunderstand me, Thomas. I agree things are getting crazier and crazier. But I think it has more to do with the supernatural than it does with the natural. Ellen White explains what I think is going on:

The restraining Spirit of God is even now being withdrawn from the world. Hurricanes, storms, tempests, fire and flood, disasters by sea and land, follow each other in quick succession. Science seeks to explain all these. The signs thickening around us, telling of the near approach of the Son of God, are attributed to any other than the true cause. Men cannot discern the sentinel angels restraining the four winds that they shall not blow until the servants of God are sealed; but when God shall bid His angels loose the winds, there shall be such a scene of strife as no pen can picture.--Testimonies, vol. 6, p. 408. {ChS 52.1}

The days in which we live are solemn and important. The Spirit of God is gradually but surely being withdrawn from the earth. Plagues and judgments are already falling upon the despisers of the grace of God. The calamities by land and sea, the unsettled state of society, the alarms of war, are portentous. They forecast approaching events of the greatest magnitude. The agencies of evil are combining their forces, and consolidating. They are strengthening for the last great crisis. Great changes are soon to take place in our world, and the final movements will be rapid ones.--Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 11. {ChS 52.2}

The time is at hand when there will be sorrow in the world that no human balm can heal. The Spirit of God is being withdrawn. Disasters by sea and by land follow one another in quick succession. How frequently we hear of earthquakes and tornadoes, of destruction by fire and flood, with great loss of life and property! Apparently these calamities are capricious outbreaks of disorganized, unregulated forces of nature, wholly beyond the control of man; but in them all, God's purpose may be read. They are among the agencies by which He seeks to arouse men and women to a sense of their danger.--Prophets and Kings, p. 277. {ChS 52.3}

How long is the "record"?

Is it long enough to make a determination?

If the earth (life) is 6000 years old, what would be a reasonable length to make a judgment? If it is 4 billion years old, what would be a reasonable length to make a judgment?

Are the same points and methods being measured from the beginning of the record to the end?

"What" is being measured?
.
.
.

Would these be a few reasonable questions?

Mike

It is possible that the cause on some level is supernatural. But supernatural doesnt explain anything. Which is why anyone who deals with science does not use it in atempts to explain things. This approach is not new either. Even in the days when science was a pasttime for priests did "supernatural" not quite make the cut for an explanation on how creation really works.


kland

The answer some depends on what level of accuracy you want to have. But the instrumental measurement records reach to before the foundation of the adventist church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

It would only be meaningful to compare within the time when there has been life on earth. This since life has such vast and profound impacts on every aspect of this planet that any time before life would be too different to be meaningful.

Thomas, as you know, scientists often get it wrong. Paul referred to this fact in the following terms:

1 Timothy
6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace [be] with thee. Amen.

And Ellen White observed:


Of course somewhat of the reverse is happening today. Scientists are claiming "global warming" is responsible for the increase in natural disasters. It does not occur to them that God is employing the forces of nature to accomplish His purposes. Ellen White went on to say:

The bowels of the earth were the Lord's arsenal, from which he drew forth the weapons he employed in the destruction of the old world. Waters in the bowels of the earth gushed forth, and united with the waters from Heaven, to accomplish the work of destruction. Since the flood, God has used both water and fire in the earth as his agents to destroy wicked cities. {3SG 82.2}

Those majestic trees which God had caused to grow upon the earth, for the benefit of the inhabitants of the old world, and which they had used to form into idols, and to corrupt themselves with, God has reserved in the earth, in the shape of coal and oil to use as agencies in their final destruction. As he called forth the waters in the earth at the time of the flood, as weapons from his arsenal to accomplish the destruction of the antediluvian race, so at the end of the one thousand years he will call forth the fires in the earth as his weapons which he has reserved for the final destruction, not only of successive generations since the flood, but the antediluvian race who perished by the flood. {3SG 87.1}

I guess in a way, that is my question - how accurate do we need to be; how many years of measurements determine what accuracy?

It seems to me that you are saying that 159 years out of 6000 at best or 4 billion at worst yields adequate accuracy and quality in ability to determine whether there is a warming or cooling trend or a stability.

But, I didn't see where you or the link gave evidence as to whether that is reasonable. 159 of 6000 is 2.65%. And that at a 0.6C difference. Now, if these years could be somehow randomized throughout the 6000, 3% could be a way to conjecture a conclusion. However, the last 3% with no reference to the previous 97% does not seem reasonable to me. Does it seem reasonable to you that we could make a conclusion of 6000 years as a whole based upon the last 159?

Is measuring the troposphere a reasonable way of measuring the earth's temperature? Someone must have assumed so, but is that really an accurate measurement? What if the actual earth's temperature show a different trend? What if measuring something else showed differently? Is the air temperature relevant to any future impact? Some heating appliance dealers would have you to believe that's not true. Aren't these reasonable questions? I didn't hear if you thought my previous questions were reasonable to be asking.

Of interest in the link is proxies of tree rings and ice cores. I had not noticed that before, but their previous temperature charts are based upon tree rings. I don't know how trees of ancient history grew, but my personal experience with trees and cutting them down reveals that trees grow fastest with the most rainfall. I'm not sure tree growth could be related to temperature very much -- other than those times in the past when it was too cold for them to grow. Now, while it is interesting to speculate and make assumptions of tree growth and ice cores, one must keep in mind they are speculations and assumptions, but not facts. A fact would be finding fossils of tropical looking plants in the Arctic. An assumption would be that temperatures were much much warmer in the past than now. But, it might be possible for a plant to look tropical and yet grow in cold climates. What do you think?

kland,

Basically, all of what you just said amounts to a statement of agnosticism relative to modern science--that it is simply improbable that scientific methods of today can actually recognize a trend, due to having blanks in the historical data.

I might actually agree with you to a point. But let me ask you something...

Suppose you were to observe a train passing from Miami to Seattle. You know where it has come from because there is a digital display on its front stating "Miami - Seattle." However, you make your observation on the western slope of the Cascades as the train is beginning its descent. While you are watching, you notice that the speed of the train is increasing. You know nothing about the train's track record in all the long miles it has traveled from Miami until now. Can you safely say that you see a trend toward increasing speed? Or do all those unknown data points from its history invalidate the current data?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

In the end, it all comes down to a question of worldview. Do you believe that we can know anything about the world we live in or do you believe that we can not know anything about the world we live in. If you do believe we can know something about the world, then we go on asking how we can learn about it.

It is true that trees which grow in warm and dry regions would have water as their main limiting factor. Things are different further north where trees have growth seasons limited by cold winters.

Thomas, a worldview of nature and science certainly plays a part. But our view of God and the truth, in particular end-time events, plays are big part too. Nature is not self-acting. It depends on God to function and operate. "Nothing happens without His permission." (ML 291) When God commands angels to use the forces of nature to cause and death destruction it happens in spite of what we do. In other words, the seven last plagues do not depend on us polluting and perverting the planet. They will happen because angels will make it happen. "The same destructive power exercised by holy angels when God commands, will be exercised by evil angels when He permits. There are forces now ready, and only waiting the divine permission, to spread desolation everywhere." (GC 614)