What if climate change is real and human caused--what should Christians do about it?

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Warmer conditions at the poles should increase precipitation. Which is what the models predicted. However, the concern in Antarctica, is not more snow there.

Larsen C Crack Is in Its Final Stages; Will Produce One of World's Largest Icebergs Ever Recorded
A chunk of Antarctic ice the size of Delaware will soon break off and drift away to melt. Fortunately, an ice shelf is essentially a big tethered iceberg, so this won't markedly affect sea levels right away. However, when the ice shelves finally go away, the continental ice that will then melt is going to raise sea levels, much as the melting Greenland icecap is doing.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14730

You deniers need to get your stories straight.

Are the ice shelves diminishing, or not?

Stipe, you aren't really that ignorant, are you? Seriously, Stipe?

You come on like you know what you're talking about, and then we get something like this?

O.K. Snowfall, in the interior of Antarctica is relatively uncommon. It's cold enough that the relative humidity is quite low.

Despite its thick ice, Antarctica is classified as a desert because so little moisture falls from the sky. The inner regions of the continent receive an average of 2 inches (50 millimeters) of precipitation — primarily in the form of snow — each year. More rain falls in the Sahara desert.
https://www.livescience.com/21677-antarctica-facts.html

So rising temperatures in the interior mean... yep. More snow. However, the effect of rising temperatures on the ice shelves. (which are on the edge of the continent, Stipe, hence "shelves") Is to weaken them. Large chunks break off and melt. The next one will be a little bigger than Maryland.

And if you deem yourself informed enough to be telling people about climate, no one should have to tell you things like this, Stipe.

 

[The Barbarian]

As for the taxing, that gets a big NO from me.:e4e:

That's like saying you're driving your car a lot more miles, but you don't want to spend money having the brakes tended to more often.

There's no argument as to whether or not we can cause global effects from the amount of carbon we're dumping into the air. Fact is, we're doing it.

The only question is whether or not we'll do something about it, or let nature fix it for us.

You won't like nature's solution.

 

[Wick Stick]

It's called carbon dioxide. If we can alter the amount of CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) in the atmosphere, we can alter the climate.

The idea that man is trying to alter the climate globally, is a lot scarier to me than the idea that man is accidentally doing so.

 

[The Barbarian]

The idea that man is trying to alter the climate globally, is a lot scarier to me than the idea that man is accidentally doing so.

The idea of cleaning your house is scarier than messing it up? How so?

 

[Derf]

Barbarian observes:
Warmer conditions at the poles should increase precipitation. Which is what the models predicted. However, the concern in Antarctica, is not more snow there.

Larsen C Crack Is in Its Final Stages; Will Produce One of World's Largest Icebergs Ever Recorded
A chunk of Antarctic ice the size of Delaware will soon break off and drift away to melt. Fortunately, an ice shelf is essentially a big tethered iceberg, so this won't markedly affect sea levels right away. However, when the ice shelves finally go away, the continental ice that will then melt is going to raise sea levels, much as the melting Greenland icecap is doing.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14730




Stipe, you aren't really that ignorant, are you? Seriously, Stipe?

You come on like you know what you're talking about, and then we get something like this?

O.K. Snowfall, in the interior of Antarctica is relatively uncommon. It's cold enough that the relative humidity is quite low.

Despite its thick ice, Antarctica is classified as a desert because so little moisture falls from the sky. The inner regions of the continent receive an average of 2 inches (50 millimeters) of precipitation — primarily in the form of snow — each year. More rain falls in the Sahara desert.
https://www.livescience.com/21677-antarctica-facts.html

So rising temperatures in the interior mean... yep. More snow. However, the effect of rising temperatures on the ice shelves. (which are on the edge of the continent, Stipe, hence "shelves") Is to weaken them. Large chunks break off and melt. The next one will be a little bigger than Maryland.

And if you deem yourself informed enough to be telling people about climate, no one should have to tell you things like this, Stipe.

The ice shelves don't start on the edge, do they? Maybe the higher snowfall was needed in the past to build the ice shelves to what they are now. And maybe that means, with higher moisture levels due to warmer climate, that the snow will allow for a rebound in the shelves, despite the large chunks breaking off at present.

I'm not convinced that a thawing antarctica is necessarily a bad thing, despite the need for some evasive action for those close to coasts.

 

[Wick Stick]

The idea of cleaning your house is scarier than messing it up? How so?

You must have a lot more faith in humanity than me. From where I stand, man's ability to screw stuff up greatly exceeds his ability to fix things up.

A more apt metaphor would be hiring a gorilla to fix your heat pump. Probably a bad idea.

 

[Derf]

As a Christian, I already have the story of the most horrific time that will ever be in human history (Matt 24:21), and everything is going to turn out A-OK for planet Earth.

I don't think man can do anything to destroy the planet anymore than I think anything man did in the days of Noah caused a natural reaction of the world being flooded.
To me, scripture seems to make it clear that when the wrath comes, the entire world is going to KNOW it is GOD doing it.
That implies that it cannot be something that could be racked-up to some natural occurrence that man causes.

As for the taxing, that gets a big NO from me.

:e4e:

Some people around here think Matt 24:21 was already delayed because of people's activities. Might it be delayed again?

After all, even if Noah's flood wasn't a "natural" reaction to man's violence, by which I think you mean it was a "supernatural" reaction, wouldn't less violence or even repentance have actually postponed or eliminated the supernatural threat?

And what if climate change (assuming it's a fact) is a supernatural reaction to man's general rejection of Christ, and something that is leading up to the wrath God promised. Does Jeremiah 18:8 apply here?

 

[Derf]

As for the taxing, that gets a big NO from me.

:e4e:

And, by the way, I agree on the taxing thing. Not that I don't see the need for proper taxes and government functions, but I doubt the funds will be used appropriately--I'm not that trusting of human nature, especially of how it gets further warped in politics.

Is it possible to make the argument that the taxes are a way we don't love our neighbor?

 

[Derf]

You must have a lot more faith in humanity than me. From where I stand, man's ability to screw stuff up greatly exceeds his ability to fix things up.

A more apt metaphor would be hiring a gorilla to fix your heat pump. Probably a bad idea.

Oh, he'll fix it all right!

 

[The Barbarian]

You must have a lot more faith in humanity than me. From where I stand, man's ability to screw stuff up greatly exceeds his ability to fix things up.

Which is precisely why we should stop messing with it.

A more apt metaphor would be hiring a gorilla to fix your heat pump.

That's what we're doing now. Climatologists are suggesting that you stop giving the gorilla bigger hammers.

 

[Derf]

Maybe we need a water vapor tax, too.

From the American Chemical Society https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/...enarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html:

It’s Water Vapor, Not the CO2 Remark: “The Earth has certainly been warming since we have added so much CO2 to the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning.” Reply: “Forget the CO2. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It controls the Earth’s temperature.” It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water. This is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds. The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3. Since the middle of the 20th century, small amounts of man-made gases, mostly chlorine- and fluorine-containing solvents and refrigerants, have been added to the mix. Because these gases are not condensable at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, the atmosphere can pack in much more of these gases . Thus, CO2 (as well as CH4, N2O, and O3) has been building up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution when we began burning large amounts of fossil fuel. If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables. There is also a possibility that adding more water vapor to the atmosphere could produce a negative feedback effect. This could happen if more water vapor leads to more cloud formation. Clouds reflect sunlight and reduce the amount of energy that reaches the Earth’s surface to warm it. If the amount of solar warming decreases, then the temperature of the Earth would decrease. In that case, the effect of adding more water vapor would be cooling rather than warming. But cloud cover does mean more condensed water in the atmosphere, making for a stronger greenhouse effect than non-condensed water vapor alone – it is warmer on a cloudy winter day than on a clear one. Thus the possible positive and negative feedbacks associated with increased water vapor and cloud formation can cancel one another out and complicate matters. The actual balance between them is an active area of climate science research.

 

[The Barbarian]

The ice shelves don't start on the edge, do they?

Have to. It's the nature of shelves. The ice extends off the edge of the continent and forms shelves out into the ocean.

Maybe the higher snowfall was needed in the past to build the ice shelves to what they are now.

No, just as the very low precipitation in Antarctica, over millions of years, accumulated into deep ice caps, the slow movement of glaciers down the coastline eventually extended sheets of ice out into the sea around the continent.

And maybe that means, with higher moisture levels due to warmer climate, that the snow will allow for a rebound in the shelves, despite the large chunks breaking off at present.

It's warming that's breaking up the shelves. In warmer climates, the glaciers just reach the sea, and huge chunks of ice break off and fall into the sea to float away.

I'm not convinced that a thawing antarctica is necessarily a bad thing, despite the need for some evasive action for those close to coasts.

The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet).
https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question473.htm

So if maybe 1/10 of it melted, we'd see about a 20 foot rise in seas. Kiss off many of the world's coastal cities if that happens.

Look here for more conservative estimates of melting:
https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slr

 

[way 2 go]

Let's take the fossil fuel reduction as a starter. The website I referenced stated that a carbon tax is one way to reduce the use of fossil fuels. This would work in two ways, supposedly: 1. Make it cheaper to emit less carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases, and 2. Provide funds for someone to use to find other ways to curb emissions.

For my #1 above, is there anything immoral about levying a tax such as this?

It would be stealing

Lev_19:11 “You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another.

 

[Derf]

It would be stealing

Lev_19:11 “You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another.

Is all taxing stealing? Was Joseph stealing when he took 20% of the produce of the Egyptians for seven years? How does one decide which taxes are moral and which are stealing?

 

[Derf]

Have to. It's the nature of shelves. The ice extends off the edge of the continent and forms shelves out into the ocean.



No, just as the very low precipitation in Antarctica, over millions of years, accumulated into deep ice caps, the slow movement of glaciers down the coastline eventually extended sheets of ice out into the sea around the continent.



It's warming that's breaking up the shelves. In warmer climates, the glaciers just reach the sea, and huge chunks of ice break off and fall into the sea to float away.



The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet).
https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question473.htm

So if maybe 1/10 of it melted, we'd see about a 20 foot rise in seas. Kiss off many of the world's coastal cities if that happens.

Look here for more conservative estimates of melting:
https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slr

Does that include the expanded area of the ocean as it rises, or is that number just the extra height assuming the exact same size ocean? Is there not a tradeoff, where the more southern and northern latitudes become more habitable? Have not peoples always had to deal with changing coastlines, just some more quickly than others? Holland is a good example. What if we decided to put the money, assuming we had such, into relocating people instead of just wringing our hands hoping it won't get too bad?

 

[The Barbarian]

Does that include the expanded area of the ocean as it rises, or is that number just the extra height assuming the exact same size ocean?

It's the rise in sea level. Vertically, how much higher sea level would be. And yes, it includes the area flooded.

Is there not a tradeoff, where the more southern and northern latitudes become more habitable?

There will be some winners, along with losers, yes. The United States just has a larger area where there will be losers. Not just the coasts, but the Great Plans and the mountains.

Have not peoples always had to deal with changing coastlines, just some more quickly than others?

Sea level hasn't really changed in our history. I don't think it's been much of an issue, except cases of land subsidence.

Holland is a good example.

Sea levels didn't change. Land was reclaimed by dikes and pumping.

What if we decided to put the money, assuming we had such, into relocating people instead of just wringing our hands hoping it won't get too bad?

Even a 5 foot rise would still leave much of New York city (for example) habitable. But we're talking costs much higher than reducing emissions would cost.

Different people would be taking the hit, of course, which is why there's resistance to doing anything about it.

 

[Stripe]

Even if the world's ending in fire is predetermined, is its timing also?

Yes.

Is it possible that the driving force of climate change, [added:] and possibly the end of the world, is due to the activity or inactivity of Christians?

It'll be global warming as an extinction-level event. Carbon is of no concern. People are to blame and there's no avoiding it.

If we are supposed to "occupy" until He comes (Luk 19:13), does that mean we sit by and just let things happen (Luk 19:20)?

Depends what you're talking about. If you're looking for us to jump on board the carbon fanaticism, forget about it.

It's a non-issue.

What about Paul's admonition to obey the proper authorities, Rom 13:2,6? According to Paul, we need pay the taxes assigned to us. I guess we can include carbon tax, once it is established?

You look after your taxes, I'll look after mine.

Shouldn't we be able to at least step up and offer a better scheme?

No carbon tax is a better scheme.

Easy, huh?

Gcthomas's point is a good one--if we are not loving our neighbor by trashing the environment, then are we really Christian?

This is a false dichotomy. The warming hype is nonsense. That doesn't mean the only alternative is that we must trash the planet.

On the other hand, if we are sure that just because the seasons will continue, there will be no effect of our activities on the environment, we should be able to show it by making predictions about the environment--and seeing them fulfilled. I'm not sure what these would look like, but I would like to suggest that if people follow God's will, that they will not suffer from the effects of climate change. The rain does fall on the just and the unjust.

The sun will rise tomorrow.

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian observes:Warmer conditions at the poles should increase precipitation. Which is what the models predicted. However, the concern in Antarctica, is not more snow there.[COOR="#800000"]Larsen C Crack Is in Its Final Stages; Will Produce One of World's Largest Icebergs Ever RecordedA chunk of Antarctic ice the size of Delaware will soon break off and drift away to melt. Fortunately, an ice shelf is essentially a big tethered iceberg, so this won't markedly affect sea levels right away. However, when the ice shelves finally go away, the continental ice that will then melt is going to raise sea levels, much as the melting Greenland icecap is doing./COLOR][rl]https: //www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14730[/url]Stipe, you aren't really that ignorant, are you? Seriously, Stipe?You come on like you know what you're talking about, and then we get something like this? O.K. Snowfall, in the interior of Antarctica is relatively uncommon. It's cold enough that the relative humidity is quite low.[COLR="#800000"]Despite its thick ice, Antarctica is classified as a desert because so little moisture falls from the sky. The inner regions of the continent receive an average of 2 inches (50 millimeters) of precipitation — primarily in the form of snow — each year. More rain falls in the Sahara desert. [/COLOR]
[ur]https://www.livescience.com/21677-antarctica-facts.html[/url]So rising temperatures in the interior mean... yep. More snow. However, the effect of rising temperatures on the ice shelves. (which are on the edge of the continent, Stipe, hence "shelves") Is to weaken them. Large chunks break off and melt. The next one will be a little bigger than Maryland.And if you deem yourself informed enough to be telling people about climate, no one should have to tell you things like this, Stipe.

One, two or three, Denier.

We know you won't answer.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chides Stipe for knowing nothing about the subject on which he wants to lecture us:
However, the effect of rising temperatures on the ice shelves. (which are on the edge of the continent, Stipe, hence "shelves") Is to weaken them. Large chunks break off and melt. The next one will be a little bigger than Maryland.And if you deem yourself informed enough to be telling people about climate, no one should have to tell you things like this, Stipe.

(Stipe dodges again, by asking questions already answered)

For the third time (or maybe the fourth)

The climate is changing.

Yep. Last few years have each been the top five all time, and three of them were record highs.

The actions of men are the reason.

Yep. CO2 because of the huge amount we're dumping into the atmosphere, and because it absorbs infrared at frequencies other greenhouse gases don't, is a particularly major cause.

The effects have been and will be catastrophic.

People living along the Gulf coast think so. The increasing severity of storms and the accompanying damage and increase in insurance rates say so.

The elevated temperatures and drying of the Sahel, leading to wars and insurrections as people try to find a way to live there indicates so.

But the worst is yet to come. We haven't seen the continental glaciers start to melt until very recently. The huge loss of ice in the Arctic Ocean won't raise sea levels. Do you understand why, Stipe? Tell us why.

Now, since I've told you a third time, time for you to man up and answer my question.

 

[Derf]

Yes.

It'll be global warming as an extinction-level event. Carbon is of no concern. People are to blame and there's no avoiding it.

Depends what you're talking about. If you're looking for us to jump on board the carbon fanaticism, forget about it.

It's a non-issue.

You look after your taxes, I'll look after mine.

No carbon tax is a better scheme.

Easy, huh?

This is a false dichotomy. The warming hype is nonsense. That doesn't mean the only alternative is that we must trash the planet.


The sun will rise tomorrow.

So Christians have NO responsibility? not even to tell others about the coming catastrophe (the extinction-level event you mention)? You say it like there's no hope for them?