Global Warming is Caused by Hell

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17878460/Global-Warming-is-Caused-by-Hell

This post is an example of why this forum needs a humor section.

You are right.

For a second I thought global warming was caused by the sun

And I thought it was a figment of Al Gore's imagination.

As you can see, you were both wrong.

Don't tell Al.

Mike, you one of those science deniers they tell about on tv?

I'm one of those guys who isn't convinced "global warming" is a fact.

Yes, such facts as 14 of the warmest years on record happening within the last 20 years is just a statistical abnormality...

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)

Nice analogy. However, I'm not sure what you are expecting me to say to it as it seems to support my complaint. My complaint is that it is not a fact that we know about the world which we do not live in.

For example, measuring the train's increased speed, one could erroneously conclude a very high speed when it hits Seattle and issue warnings for all to evacuate the town. Likewise, one would conclude it must have hardly been moving for decades since it left Miami. Nothing about it's current rate would give evidence of any previous rates, how the current speed compares with past speeds, whether it is faster or slower than past speeds, nor if it has ever been in Miami. It could have been a train newly placed in service at Denver. A newly transfered operator, from Miami, may have incorrectly posted the message. (Ideas from "Great Lateral Thinking Puzzles")

So, no, there are no facts other than the current speed, rate of increase, and direction you can determine from it. The rest are conclusions/speculations which may or may not be true.

It's not "blanks" in past climate data -- the front 97% is completely missing. And politicians are evacuating Seattle, bulldozing homes, to make way for a train crash which isn't going to occur.

So you do acknowledge the current facts, and that they can be used to determine the direction the train is going.

From my perspective, the "historical facts" may be somewhat irrelevant to the current ones for a couple of reasons.

First, the train may have gone over mountains before. The train may even have picked up excessive speed before. That would indicate that such is likely again. However, just because we do not have this data does not make it any less fact-based to recognize the current trend. In fact, the "unknown" portion of the data you suggest is required must necessarily have a neutral effect on current observations. One cannot claim an area of ignorance to be either for or against known data.

Second, the train may have gone over a lot of terrain and always before managed to recover itself upon reaching excessive speeds. In some places, this may have been because it reached the valley only to have another hill to climb which helped it safely dissipate that excess speed. (For our climate, something like a large volcanic eruption which puts ash high into our atmosphere, reflecting radiant energy of the sun, might be the equivalent.) However, upon reaching the final slope, the brakes may be ailing and there are no further uphill slopes ahead. (Unless perhaps those politicians are active enough to bulldoze up a mountain out of a molehill.) Would not the residents of Seattle be well-advised to see what they could to to help slow the train?

From my perspective, 97% of unknown has a completely neutral effect on the 3% of known data--for it can neither establish, nor undermine the current facts. In fact, to base one's agnosticism of facts upon ignorance is...well, let me ask you this: how soon do you expect to know everything? If unknown/unestablished data remove the validity of "known" data, what can you ever hope to know?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Actually, depending on current acceleration, velocity, and position, it might have been going backwards when it left Miami.

Current conditions tell us nothing about past or future conditions unless a mechanism can be determined that allows for reasonable extrapolation. But then, scientists today have wonderful imaginations at their disposal in order to support current dogma (see cosmological inflation).

Mike,

In the end I think most people have one worldview, which would then have to include both their views on science and God. The way you put it, "Nature is not self-acting. It depends on God to function and operate. "Nothing happens without His permission."" would imply to me that your view of science is that it is unreliable. Why? Because when it comes down to it, there is nothing to matter that would cause the apple to fall to the ground, there is nothing to the airplane wing nor to the birds wings that would cause it to fly, there is nothing to the ship that would cause it to float and so on. Apples fall because God for the time being wants it that way, birds and planes fly because it for the time being happens to fit into Gods plans, and boats float... etc.

This is certainly one way you can view the world, but it is highly unlikely that any technological breakthroughs would have happened had it been the prevailing point of view for the last 6-7000 years of human civilization.

And who gave people this gift of imagination? Could a creationist debunk an idea on soley the fact that Godgiven imagination was involved?

There are many things science does not yet understand. For example, the search is still on to find the Higgs Boson, which gives some particles mass, while other particles, such as photons, do not have mass. Current theory says that there is a Higgs Field (the "partner" of the Higgs Boson) that permeates everything and gives matter its properties.

In short, particle physicists today believe that there is an all-pervading "something" that makes some things heavy - making them gravitationally attractive - and others light - allowing them to travel at the universal speed limit. This "something" has been called the "God particle" by some.

There is no problem to involve imagination. If it wasn't for imagination, Kekulé might not have been the first to correctly describe the structure of Benzene. At the very least, we wouldn't have such an interesting story to tell young chemists.

However, if all one has to offer is imagination, without accompanying evidence, then it is as much a day-dream as it is a theory. When Kekulé proposed his structure for Benzene, it had the advantage of being able to explain observed phenomena.

I'm not saying the forces of nature, as regulated by God, are not predictable. Scientists have accurately drawn conclusions based on it. But predicting the weather is still largely guesswork. There are too many variables and unknowns to pin it down accurately. This also applies to the theory of "global warming". To suggest it accounts for all the weather anomalies observed in nature is bold at best and worthless at worst. No, I'm not totally discounting it. But neither am I touting it as the only answer. As I have said before, I believe the active role of God and angels accounts for everything. Again, nature is not self-acting. It depends on God to behave how it does. He either commands holy angels or permits evil angels to manipulate the forces of nature to cause death and destruction. He leaves nothing to fate, chance, or mother nature. He alone is in charge and in command. As such, God is not dependent on us to pollute and pervert nature before He can command His angels to pour out the seven last plagues.

What if the weather anomalies are seen as the nuts and bolts of global warming rather than as individual situations that need to be explained by a global warming theory?
To try an example, smoke is not an air anomaly explainable by the theory of fire. Smoke is so much a part of fire that we say "no smoke without a fire".

You are of course right that there is yet lots and lots of things that we are unaware of in regard to how this works, but we are learning new things about it all the time. Can we ever explain it fully? Who knows? Will we be able to give a satisfactory explanation. Most likely.

Are not the seven last plagues like the ones brought on Egypt in the time of Moses more or less outside normal behaviour?

Yes, the seven last plagues will similar to the plagues of Egypt, only worse, a lot worse. "The plagues upon Egypt when God was about to deliver Israel, were similar in character to those more terrible and extensive judgments which are to fall upon the world just before the final deliverance of God's people. {LDE 244.1} "The Lord God of Israel is to execute judgment upon the gods of this world as upon the gods of Egypt. With fire and flood, plagues and earthquakes, He will spoil the whole land. {LDE 240.2}

As with the Egyptian plagues, the seven last plagues will come suddenly and unexpectedly. Scientists will not cry, "We told you so." Instead, just prior to the out pouring of the plagues, they will be declaring, "Peace and safety."

Why should the residents be advised concerning something that is of no concern to them? Why should they be alerted to something that isn't going to happen that all the control and capability is inherent in the mechanism of the train itself? I am having a hard time following and making sense out of your comments. Otherwise, why aren't there daily mandatory evacuations for Seattle for each train heading that way?

Agreed.
Agreed.
Who says it removes the validity of known data? I'm objecting to using facts of known data to conjecture the unknown. Both, forward and backward.

What is so confusing of what you said is you even mention that the train may have had lots of mountains and valleys in the past which we don't know about. So why should we take a 3% "trend" (if you could even call it that) and wildly speculate what has happened during the past 97%? Why do you expect to know what's going to happen in the future if you know it has recovered in the past? How can you say the train is going to go at an extreme rate of speed upon reaching Seattle if you are ignorant of past knowledge, of internal mechanisms of control? Don't you think it is a little bit outrageous to evacuate Seattle, and when the train slowly rolls in to a stop, the engineer asks where did everyone go?

Ah...perhaps herein lies our misunderstanding. I'm doing no speculation about what has happened in the past. I'm only recognizing the trend toward the future.

What I was trying to say was that the unknown data (which just happens to be in the past in this case), has no bearing upon future trends and current known data. Admittedly, we would like to know the past data. But just because we do not have it does not mean we cannot use what we have.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Oh, and I agree.

And if life on earth was only 159 years, I would agree there should be concern. But, we do know life has been doing just fine for a very large percentage longer. So, I am saying, how can we use 3% of end data, to determine what is going to happen in the future? Have you considered the conclusions if we should stop the end point in the 1970s? What if we used a different starting point? What if instead of 159 years, we used the last 10 years? Do you see my question - why is 159 useful but not some other number and why are any of these arbitrary numbers useful when they make up less than 3% of life's history?

Why do you say the train coming down the mountain reflects what the speed will be when it reaches Seattle?

There is the trend towards higher temperatures. But it does not stand alone. We have many other worrying trends that follows it. For instance, our corral reefs are dying due to high water temperatures. If this had happened regularely in the past, the corral reefs would be able to withstand the very moderate increases on sea temperature, only 2-4 degrees. But they dont. Why is that if there is nothing extraordinary in the current temperature increase?
Land and sea ice is melting everywhere. Ice that has been stable for, well ages would depend on your general view on that but at least for a significant number of thousands of years. How can there be huge reservoars of anicent ice if it melts off on a regular basis? And if it does not melt of regularely, and yet melts off now, is this not an extraordinary time? There are certainly other examples but these are the ones I come to think of.

To try and look at the train example, we have one scientist who is calculating the steady increase in speed of this train taking down the hill. We have another one who studies the trains brake system and finds out that the break oil has been leaking out since the train began to climb the mountain at the other side and there isnt enough effect left to reduce train speed effectively. Then a third scientist studies the rails and finds that someone has painted the entire track all the way down to Seattle with lard. Then if that was not enough, yet unconfirmed indications suggest that someone has stored a couple of sea containers filled with nitroglycerine and TNT in the train cargo. None of these would in itself be reason to evacuate Seattle, but all of them taken together? If I lived anywhere near the Seattle train station I would think seriously about going on vaccation out of town until that trian was stopped...

Ice reached down to the middle of the states. It hasn't been there for 100s of years. Yes, global warming has been happening, but long before man started pumping oil.


Excepting none of those things have been observed.

Yes, the temperature has been moving up and down in history. When we use the phrase "global warming" now, we are refering to aditional warming that goes beyond that which would naturally occur. But you already knew this of course. Oh, but they have been observed. You just have not paid attention to them before.

And that is what I am questioning. How can we know the 3% goes beyond the 97% of which we do not know?

GC and I were coming from the premise that we did not know the past history of the train. You seem to intend otherwise. Perhaps you can inform me (of that which I have not paid attention?) of some facts. The only fact I know of is that the temperature of something (air, water, pavement?) has increased within the last 3% of life's history depending upon which start and end points are arbitrarily chosen.

I also am comming to your train metaphore with the assumption that nothing is known about its speed before the decent down the mountain side. I added that one thing was known from before that, namely that the break system had been leaking its break fluid. The leaking was observed in the present and knowing what level of fluid the breaks should have contained together with calculating the leakage speed give indication of how far back it has been dropping. Nothing extraordinary about that. The greased rails and highly explosive cargo is something which anyone can observe presently, no different from observing the increasing speed. Some examples of what these further observations to the train can stand for are given a couple of posts up.

Considering that the 3%/97% relates to known historical developments, these numbers need not be refered to at all for my statement which you quote. What it does refer to is that; if we have a greenhouse with a certain level of ventilation at the roof windows, and some of these windows are closed it is reasonable to conclude that this reduced ventilation is responcible for the increase in temperature inside of the greenhouse. If we have house with singleglas windows and change them to twoglas windows but still heat as much as before, there will be a higher temperature inside. Increasing the amount of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere equals reducing ventilation or added layers to a window. History comes in only at the level where we confirm that the levels are indeed higher today than yesteryear. This can for instance be done through air samples in glaciers.