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

[Nihilo]

It's like refusing to do anything about the fraying wiring in your house, because eventually, there will be an earthquake that destroys it all, anyway.

It's not like that. If your frayed wiring catches your home on fire, you could lose your home. 'Those gradually rising oceans' might claim at most 10% of people's homes, and we'll all have plenty of warning so that our migration /relocations can proceed fairly orderly and without too much chaos or violence. People who own property reclaimed by the sea have to anticipate a big financial hit to their net worth, but this is a far cry from the whole planet plunging into a multi-year nuclear winter.

I'm completely good with monitoring sky and even working out the details of technology that would allow us to nudge threatening rocks into orbits that will miss Earth.

Me too, and more investment by our most intelligent people to think through what else we should do. This requires a multi-pronged parallel path strategy to best prepare for it. Of course ideally we can as you say 'nudge' the mountain off course, but if that can't be accomplished (in time), we must be prepared to survive if not thrive after the impact, and we must do it while respecting all of our individual rights as human beings.

But the more immediate concern is that which is likely to kill millions of people.

That's the mountain. 'Climate change' /'those gradually rising oceans' isn't going to kill millions of people, unless they're exceptionally stupid.

When will the next asteroid hit Earth?

... an asteroid the size of the dinosaur (and 70% of the species on Earth) killer at 10 km in size hits on time scales more like 100 million years.

So given that Science puts the age of the earth in the billions of years, this means that dozens of asteroids /mountains half the size of Mt. Everest have pelted the earth so far. To be conservative, let's say that there have been 20 such mountains that have impacted the earth. So we know that another rock half the size of Everest is going to strike us, at some point, and we don't know when, and, additionally, we know that NASA claims that they've only identified 30% of objects that might hit us.

So I'd say, let's forget about 'climate change' until NASA says that we've identified let's say 99% of the 'near earth objects' out there, by their estimate. Because right now, even with the odds being very long that Everest is going to come screaming out of the sky immediately, the odds are non-zero (according to Science), and the expected value of such surely still renders it a more immediate threat to address than does 'those gradually rising oceans.'

Look, I would love, and I pray, that we get 100 if not 1000 or more year's advance notice, before the next Everest-like impact occurs. Hopefully that would give us collectively enough warning to decide what to do in an organized, peaceful, and respectful way. I expect that NASA /Science would be able to not only know when, but exactly where on the planet that the impact will occur, so that we can at least clear out of the way, hopefully on the diametric opposite side of the earth for maximum safety, and also have a good plan for how to best survive if not thrive during the ensuing nuclear winter, but we just do not know how it's going to happen at this point. We also don't know how 'spaced out' these events are, even though they might average once every 100 million years. When was the last Everest-like event? about 60-70 million years ago, right? So how sure are we that there's another 30 million years on the clock? We aren't sure at all.

And one of the things that we must anticipate is human behavior in times of wild crisis. Those are the times in history when people tend to lose their rights in enormous swathes. People tend to lose their lives in such times, illicitly, immorally, etc. Part of our preparation for such an event is to bolster our respect for human rights now, in relative calm, in advance protection of those times when people tend to lose all their rights very quickly---those of us who survive the initial impact of course.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's not like that. If your frayed wiring catches your home on fire, you could lose your home. 'Those gradually rising oceans' might claim at most 10% of people's homes, and we'll all have plenty of warning so that our migration /relocations can proceed fairly orderly and without too much chaos or violence. People who own property reclaimed by the sea have to anticipate a big financial hit to their net worth, but this is a far cry from the whole planet plunging into a multi-year nuclear winter.

Having been certified in systems safety, I can tell you that's not how it works. If you want to know the expected value of any safety action, you multiply the effectiveness of the action (0 to 1) by the likelihood of the adverse event happening in a given time span, times the severity of the adverse event (in lives lost, dollars, or whatever).

If you like, we can work with that with the two events and see what comes up.

 

[Nihilo]

Having been certified in systems safety, I can tell you that's not how it works. If you want to know the expected value of any safety action, you multiply the effectiveness of the action (0 to 1) by the likelihood of the adverse event happening in a given time span, times the severity of the adverse event (in lives lost, dollars, or whatever).

If you like, we can work with that with the two events and see what comes up.

It's not the expected value of the "safety action" but of the disasters. You can figure in the improvement you might make once you know what'll happen if we do nothing first, and compare those to each other. You don't ever just jump to a solution without sorting out the big problems from the enormous ones.

Let's make the odds 100% that 'those gradually rising oceans' will rise to their 100% highest levels (i.e. no polar ice even in winters). And let's make the odds of half of Mt. Everest hitting the earth at 100,000,000-to-1 against.

Now how do you suggest we measure severity? I think just deaths is good enough. The number of deaths with 'those gradually rising oceans' is going to be . . . what would you guess? I don't think "millions" is right. I don't think hundreds of thousands is right either, but tens of thousands? Probably still a bit strong, but maybe it's a good conservative number?

And how about the mountain strike?

I say a billion. But maybe more. Maybe a lot more Hopefully not but maybe a lot more. But is a billion fair?

So we work out the 'criticality,' or 'expected value,' in deaths, and 'those gradually rising oceans' being 100% certain, means the tens of thousands of deaths we predict aren't discounted at all because the likelihood we've put at 100%. But, the billion dead from Mt. Everest Jr. hitting Is discounted, rendering the E.V. just ten people, because the billion is discounted by the 100,000,000-to-1 against odds of it happening.

So by this analysis, I guess it does look like it doens't make sense to get too excited about the asteroid. All this presumes that our numbers and assumptions are reasonable, which we'll have to look at. It also doesn't mention other deaths, like all the species that probably go extinct in the meteor impact scenario, so we might have to adjust our number again. Also, that 100 million to one against odds, might not be quite so long. If it's only 10 million to one against, then maybe that makes it closer, and maybe only thousands die from 'those gradually rising oceans,' instead of tens of thousands?

What do you think?

 

[The Barbarian]

It's not the expected value of the "safety action" but of the disasters. You can figure in the improvement you might make once you know what'll happen if we do nothing first, and compare those to each other. You don't ever just jump to a solution without sorting out the big problems from the enormous ones.

Let's make the odds 100% that 'those gradually rising oceans' will rise to their 100% highest levels (i.e. no polar ice even in winters). And let's make the odds of half of Mt. Everest hitting the earth at 100,000,000-to-1 against.

It's not just rising oceans. BTW, only the south pole ice will affect ocean levels, because the north pole ice is floating now, and as it melts, it becomes more dense, so it won't affect the level of the oceans. It's desertification of areas needed for food production. And you have to take into account that some areas will be better for raising crops in some cases. The most realistic numbers say we'll have millions of people die, mostly from starvation, over a century. If I had to put a number on it, I'd say maybe 65% likely, unless we do something major.

It appears from moon impact craters and known hits on the Earth that a 10km object can be expected every 50 million years or so. That would likely kill five billion people, given the number of us on Earth now. So a thousand times more lives, roughly speaking.

But the likelihood of it happening in the coming century is something like 0.000002 multiply by a thousand, and you get 0.0002.

Now how do you suggest we measure severity? I think just deaths is good enough. The number of deaths with 'those gradually rising oceans' is going to be . . . what would you guess? I don't think "millions" is right. I don't think hundreds of thousands is right either, but tens of thousands? Probably still a bit strong, but maybe it's a good conservative number?

It's disruption of food production that will kill directly. But every time something like this happened in the past, there were huge migrations, wars, and destruction of urban areas. So there's that, too.

And how about the mountain strike?

I say a billion. But maybe more. Maybe a lot more Hopefully not but maybe a lot more. But is a billion fair?

Depending on where it hit. The immediate blast would be immensely deadly if it hid near eastern China, for example. But the crop failures would kill many more.

So we work out the 'criticality,' or 'expected value,' in deaths, and 'those gradually rising oceans' being 100% certain, means the tens of thousands of deaths we predict aren't discounted at all because the likelihood we've put at 100%. But, the billion dead from Mt. Everest Jr. hitting Is discounted, rendering the E.V. just ten people, because the billion is discounted by the 100,000,000-to-1 against odds of it happening.

Remember, it's odds of any particular century.

So by this analysis, I guess it does look like it doens't make sense to get too excited about the asteroid.

If one had to chose to protect against one or the other, but not both, you'd rationally deal with the immediate danger. But of course, we can do both.

All this presumes that our numbers and assumptions are reasonable, which we'll have to look at. It also doesn't mention other deaths, like all the species that probably go extinct in the meteor impact scenario, so we might have to adjust our number again. Also, that 100 million to one against odds, might not be quite so long. If it's only 10 million to one against, then maybe that makes it closer, and maybe only thousands die from 'those gradually rising oceans,' instead of tens of thousands?

What do you think?

Rising oceans are not the most significant threats to life from a warming climate.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's not just rising oceans. BTW, only the south pole ice will affect ocean levels, because the north pole ice is floating now, and as it melts, it becomes more dense, so it won't affect the level of the oceans. It's desertification of areas needed for food production. And you have to take into account that some areas will be better for raising crops in some cases. The most realistic numbers say we'll have millions of people die, mostly from starvation, over a century. If I had to put a number on it, I'd say maybe 65% likely, unless we do something major.

It appears from moon impact craters and known hits on the Earth that a 10km object can be expected every 50 million years or so. That would likely kill five billion people, given the number of us on Earth now. So a thousand times more lives, roughly speaking.

But the likelihood of it happening in the coming century is something like 0.000002 multiply by a thousand, and you get 0.0002.



It's disruption of food production that will kill directly. But every time something like this happened in the past, there were huge migrations, wars, and destruction of urban areas. So there's that, too.

And how about the mountain strike?

I say a billion. But maybe more. Maybe a lot more Hopefully not but maybe a lot more. But is a billion fair?

Depending on where it hit. The immediate blast would be immensely deadly if it hid near eastern China, for example. But the crop failures would kill many more.



Remember, it's odds of any particular century.



If one had to chose to protect against one or the other, but not both, you'd rationally deal with the immediate danger. But of course, we can do both.



Rising oceans are not the most significant threats to life from a warming climate.

This is what happens when you reject Genesis as literal.

“While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, Cold and heat, Winter and summer, And day and night Shall not cease.” - Genesis 8:22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis8:22&version=NKJV

Those are God's words.

You should accept them as something He actually said.

And fix your formatting.

 

[Nihilo]

It's not just rising oceans. BTW, only the south pole ice will affect ocean levels, because the north pole ice is floating now, and as it melts, it becomes more dense, so it won't affect the level of the oceans. It's desertification of areas needed for food production. And you have to take into account that some areas will be better for raising crops in some cases. The most realistic numbers say we'll have millions of people die, mostly from starvation, over a century. If I had to put a number on it, I'd say maybe 65% likely, unless we do something major.

It appears from moon impact craters and known hits on the Earth that a 10km object can be expected every 50 million years or so. That would likely kill five billion people, given the number of us on Earth now. So a thousand times more lives, roughly speaking.

But the likelihood of it happening in the coming century is something like 0.000002 multiply by a thousand, and you get 0.0002.



It's disruption of food production that will kill directly. But every time something like this happened in the past, there were huge migrations, wars, and destruction of urban areas. So there's that, too.


Depending on where it hit. The immediate blast would be immensely deadly if it hid near eastern China, for example. But the crop failures would kill many more.



Remember, it's odds of any particular century.



If one had to chose to protect against one or the other, but not both, you'd rationally deal with the immediate danger. But of course, we can do both.



Rising oceans are not the most significant threats to life from a warming climate.

OK. Thank you for the response.

So I'll take a break from Mt. Everest Jr. for a bit and explore an idea to address 'climate change.'

The trouble is caused by carbon in the atmosphere, which is nominally less than a percent of the air we breathe. The increasing carbon (carbon dioxide mainly) doesn't affect our direct health, i.e. our breathing, but does affect how heat is managed by the atmosphere.

So in order to address 'climate change' we need to address carbon. And the word is 'sequester,' which means to capture the carbon, to remove it from the atmosphere. We need to sequester carbon.

And my thought doesn't go to technology for this but to plants, because plants already sequester carbon from the atmosphere. The reason that plants are what they are is because they sequester carbon from the atmosphere, that carbon is what plants use as 'bricks' to build themselves, along with water. They construct carbohydrates and proteins and fats, each of which is made of carbon, converting that carbon from atmospheric to plant matter.

And a quick check indicates that something like bamboo is the plant that sequesters the most carbon from the atmosphere per unit time of all the plants on the earth.

So the idea is, grow bamboo with intention, harvest it, and then dump it in the sea. How many acres of bamboo forest does this planet need to sequester carbon at a fast enough rate to not only offset new carbon emissions, but also cut into the already elevated levels of carbon in the air now?

Thanks again. :e4e:

 

[Stripe]

We get to dump stuff in the sea?

Where do I sign up?

 

[ok doser]

:think: plastics are mostly carbon - maybe we should dump more plastics in the sea


and oil - we should dump more oil in the sea :banana:

 

[Stripe]

:think: plastics are mostly carbon - maybe we should dump more plastics in the sea


and oil - we should dump more oil in the sea :banana:

Can we dump burning tires into the sea?

 

[Nihilo]

:think: plastics are mostly carbon - maybe we should dump more plastics in the sea

No. Plastic belongs in landfills.

and oil - we should dump more oil in the sea :banana:

No way. Oil's Good Stuff. Bamboo is garbage.

 

[Right Divider]

Bamboo is garbage.

Where did you get that crazy idea?

Bamboo is an excellent building material.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo_construction

 

[Nihilo]

Where did you get that crazy idea?

Bamboo is an excellent building material.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo_construction

Then build something with it.

And lighten up.

 

[Right Divider]

Then build something with it.

Many people do. Like I said, it's an excellent building material.

And lighten up.

Crying because I called your crazy statement crazy?

 

[Nihilo]

Many people do. Like I said, it's an excellent building material.

I don't care. The idea is to capture the carbon in bamboo, or in another plant that sequesters carbon /grows even faster, and to then do whatever you want with the junk, including construct stuff with it if you want to. But if we're making so much of it that we can't construct with it fast enough to prevent it from building up huge mountains of stock of bamboo, then chuck it in the ocean. Just don't burn it, which would defeat the purpose.

Crying because I called your crazy statement crazy?

The only one crying here is you.

You obviously overlooked the levity here.

So lighten up.

 

[Right Divider]

No. Plastic belongs in landfills.
No way. Oil's Good Stuff. Bamboo is garbage.

I don't care. The idea is to capture the carbon in bamboo, or in another plant that sequesters carbon /grows even faster, and to then do whatever you want with the junk, including construct stuff with it if you want to. But if we're making so much of it that we can't construct with it fast enough to prevent it from building up huge mountains of stock of bamboo, then chuck it in the ocean. Just don't burn it, which would defeat the purpose.

The thing is... it's NOT junk.... it's ALSO an excellent building material.

Did you ever think that the ocean might start to fill up with this "junk" or that there might be other side effects of dumping things in the ocean?

The only one crying here is you.

:rotfl:

You obviously overlooked the levity here.

So lighten up.

No, you lighten up... see how that works?

 

[Nihilo]

The thing is... it's NOT junk.... it's ALSO an excellent building material.

Did you ever think that the ocean might start to fill up with this "junk" or that there might be other side effects of dumping things in the ocean?

:rotfl:

No, you lighten up... see how that works?

lain:

So like I said just dump the stuff into the sea since it's useless garbage, trash, and junk, even though . . . it will fill up the ocean. :freak:

 

[Stripe]

Now that we're all lightened up...

When do we start throwing things in the ocean?

 

[The Barbarian]

OK. Thank you for the response.

So I'll take a break from Mt. Everest Jr. for a bit and explore an idea to address 'climate change.'

The trouble is caused by carbon in the atmosphere, which is nominally less than a percent of the air we breathe. The increasing carbon (carbon dioxide mainly) doesn't affect our direct health, i.e. our breathing, but does affect how heat is managed by the atmosphere.

So in order to address 'climate change' we need to address carbon. And the word is 'sequester,' which means to capture the carbon, to remove it from the atmosphere. We need to sequester carbon.

And my thought doesn't go to technology for this but to plants, because plants already sequester carbon from the atmosphere. The reason that plants are what they are is because they sequester carbon from the atmosphere, that carbon is what plants use as 'bricks' to build themselves, along with water. They construct carbohydrates and proteins and fats, each of which is made of carbon, converting that carbon from atmospheric to plant matter.

And a quick check indicates that something like bamboo is the plant that sequesters the most carbon from the atmosphere per unit time of all the plants on the earth.

So the idea is, grow bamboo with intention, harvest it, and then dump it in the sea. How many acres of bamboo forest does this planet need to sequester carbon at a fast enough rate to not only offset new carbon emissions, but also cut into the already elevated levels of carbon in the air now?

Thanks again. :e4e:

Bamboo isn't the best way. Apparently, the least expensive way is to scatter huge amounts of soluble iron over wide stretches of ocean. The limiting factor for phytoplankton growth is iron, and experiments have shown that scattering iron across large areas of ocean will cause a large increase in phytoplankton. It's quick, too. And since the oceans are the largest well of photosynthesis in our world, it seems like a good approach.

Wouldn't hurt to find ways to slow down the amount of carbon we're dumping into the air, of course.

The other problem with rising CO2 is the fact that it reduces the nutritional value of crops. While breeding for carbon dioxide tolerance is a long-term solution, in the short term, we have a major problem.

 

[The Barbarian]

This is what happens when you reject Genesis as literal.

“While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, Cold and heat, Winter and summer, And day and night Shall not cease.” - Genesis 8:22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis8:22&version=NKJV

Those are God's words.

You should accept them as something He actually said.

Unfortunately, all those things continuing, will not stop the effects of warming. You should accept that we are stewards of this world, and we do affect what happens on it. without major changes, seas will rise,and climate will cause dislocations in farming and livability of many areas, with profound effects on culture, war, and human migration.

That's what always happens when climate changes drastically.

Even if seasons and days continue. Seed time and harvest will continue, but will not be the same times as in the past, or even in the same places.

 

[Nihilo]

Now that we're all lightened up...

When do we start throwing things in the ocean?

Like with the best time to plant a tree, the best time to dump things into the sea is 20 years ago.