Would the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Third Temple stabilize the climate???

[MehGuy]

I'm laughing so hard right now..

 

[Zoness]

Given most Christian's ambivalence or outright anti-environmentalist sentiment, I do too find the whole discussion to be laughable in retrospect.

 

[smaneck]

Funny. The Muslims would freak out if they lost thier mosque. Apparently they think holy sites should be respected.....which is odd considering their mosque is built on someone else's holy site,

A 'site' was all it was when the Muslims took over Jerusalem.

and they are still desecrating that site to this day by demolition.

Uh, you got that backwards. It is Israel's excavations which are damaging the Aqsa Mosque.

 

[smaneck]

The topic is certainly confusing!!!! To whatever degree I am incorrect... my apologies... but it has been worthwhile to discuss how this could happen and when?

Is it suppose to stabilize climate or make the desert bloom?

"The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice and blossom as the rose.
2 It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing. The glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon; they shall see the glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God."

Maybe like this:
http://www.adventurewomen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/5.-Bahai-Gardens.imot_.jpg

 

[DennisTate]

There are two extremely logical years for the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Third Temple. They are 2030..... 2000 years from the death burial and resurrection of Rabbi Jesus/Yeshua.....and exactly forty years later....2070..... the 2000 year/ 2 metaphorical day anniversary of the destruction of the Temple by the Roman armies.

If the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Third Temple according to all the specifics given in Ezekiel chapters 40 to 48 were to be completed by Yom Kippur 2031....... very very few honest Orthodox and Chassidic jewish scholars would not be tempted to ask themselves exactly what important event might have occurred exactly two thousand years ago?????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight."...
...
.... Personally.... I suspect that a literal Jerusalem FOURTH Temple complex will drop down in fulfillment of Revelation 21:2 around the year 3030..... and I have some problems with this event being delayed until 3070.... unless we the metaphorical bride......... really really mess up again.... and delay the era of Moshiach..... again!!!!!????
"And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."

 

[DennisTate]

I'm laughing so hard right now..

Well......... an earthquake near the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would cause anybody with friends or family in New Orleans or Holland or Bangladesh to take the whole subject more seriously!

Take a look at the diagrams here......... the WAIS is below sea level.... and exceptionally vulnerable to any event that would cause it to crack and slide rapidly!!!!????

Collapse Of Antarctic Ice Sheet Would Likely Put Washington, D.C. Largely Underwater -- ScienceDaily

 

[smaneck]

Well......... an earthquake near the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would cause anybody with friends or family in New Orleans or Holland or Bangladesh to take the whole subject more seriously!

Take a look at the diagrams here......... the WAIS is below sea level.... and exceptionally vulnerable to any event that would cause it to crack and slide rapidly!!!!????

Collapse Of Antarctic Ice Sheet Would Likely Put Washington, D.C. Largely Underwater -- ScienceDaily

Uh no, that article is talking about global warming *melting* the icecap, not an earth quake causing a sheet of ice to break off. The latter would do nothing since the ice would still be ice. As for global warming, it would take time years for the water level to rise. No one is going to be suddenly inundated.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Climate change denial is one of the most devastating example of wilfully cultivated ignorance. Even from a cold business perspective that only thinks in terms of profits and costs (which is all that seems to matter these days in many quarters), it's just astonishingly stupid to just ignore the problem and preserve the status quo.
Alas, the internal "logic" of the market and its tendency to reward the lowest possible (ethical, environmental, social) standard sees to it that nobody really does anything about it - even though the costs of adapting to the problem will be MUCH higher once the negative side effects of the phenomenon start to be felt in earnest, with freak weather patterns creating considerable property damage, etc.

But the nations of the world are just suspiciously eyeing each other, knowing that do invest in change would count as a disadvantage on the market in the short run - which, again, seems to be all that matters these days.

 

[DennisTate]

Uh no, that article is talking about global warming *melting* the icecap, not an earth quake causing a sheet of ice to break off. The latter would do nothing since the ice would still be ice. As for global warming, it would take time years for the water level to rise. No one is going to be suddenly inundated.

The Arctic ice up north does almost nothing toward raising ocean levels when it melts.... because it is ice that is floating in the ocean...... the situation on Greenland is entirely different because it is ice..... that is on TOP OF LAND!!!!!

The situation on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is similar to that of Greenland!

So far... the major factor that has prevented significant rising of ocean levels is that about 293 CUBIC MILES of ice are ADDED to the central region of Antarctica annually!

Expanded Discussion of the HAB Theory

Expanded Discussion of The HAB Theory

Gershom Gale
...

Geophysical science offers rather thin explanations for the periods of history during which great glaciers advanced and retreated from the polar regions, leaving a great deal of physical evidence.
The more one delves into the actual evidence, the more skeptical one becomes of the existing theories. The truth, according to the HAB Theory, is that periodically - at intervals ranging from 3,000 to 7000 years but averaging around 5,500 years apart - great global cataclysms have occurred which destroyed virtually all of whatever life forms or civilizations had developed on the Earth to that point.

The cataclysms occur when the Earth is thrown off balance due to a massive, unbalanced accumulation of ice at the polar regions. As these polar ice caps grow, their enormous weight, accumulating unevenly as it does, creates an imbalance, and a wobble begins to develop in the rotation of the Earth on its axis. Year by year, as the ice caps grow, this eccentricity increases until, with devastating suddenness, the polar masses are thrown toward the point of greatest spin, which is the equator. Quite abruptly, the areas which were polar now become equatorial, and vice versa.

The resultant cataclysm is, of course monumental across the entire face of the Earth, except at the two points which become pivotal when the capsizing effect occurs.

An Analogy:

Picture the Earth as a round ball spinning in place on a glass table top. Imagine then, that on the uppermost part of this spinning ball, you drop a tiny glob of molten metal, just slightly off center. The ball immediately begins to wobble...

Add more weight and that wobble becomes more pronounced. Add still more and the eccentricity becomes so great the centrifugal force of the spinning ball grips the weight and turns the entire ball so that the weighted portion is thrown to the imaginary line encircling the ball where the speed is greatest - which is coincident with the imaginary line on Earth known to us as the equator.

That is precisely what happens periodically to the Earth. The buildup of ice at the poles increases until its weight is suddenly thrown some 90 degrees from pole to equator. Yes, the Earth is 26 miles greater in diameter when measured around the equator than when measured around the poles, and one might argue that this bulge provides a stability that would make such a sudden tipping unlikely. But consider: such a variance, considering the size of the planet, is far less than the manufacturing tolerances of an ivory billiard ball.

As the sun evaporates the oceans, the moisture thus released precipitates as rain or snow all over the Earth. But the snows that fall on the polar caps do not melt or flow off at anything like the rate at which they evaporate elsewhere. Snow at the poles piles up and gradually turns into glacial ice. As this process continues, the ice caps increase in size.

At a symposium of the Union of Geodesy and geophysics, Dr. Pyyotor Shoumsky reported that the south polar ice cap was growing at a minimum rate of 293 cubic miles of ice annually. To put that number in perspective, Lake Erie contains only 109 cubic miles of water. Thus, a volume of ice forms on top of the existing ice at Antarctica each year which is almost three times the volume of water in Lake Erie!

 

[DennisTate]

Climate change denial is one of the most devastating example of wilfully cultivated ignorance. Even from a cold business perspective that only thinks in terms of profits and costs (which is all that seems to matter these days in many quarters), it's just astonishingly stupid to just ignore the problem and preserve the status quo.
Alas, the internal "logic" of the market and its tendency to reward the lowest possible (ethical, environmental, social) standard sees to it that nobody really does anything about it - even though the costs of adapting to the problem will be MUCH higher once the negative side effects of the phenomenon start to be felt in earnest, with freak weather patterns creating considerable property damage, etc.

But the nations of the world are just suspiciously eyeing each other, knowing that do invest in change would count as a disadvantage on the market in the short run - which, again, seems to be all that matters these days.

Well said Jane!

You are indeed a fulfillment of one of the statements by Rabbi Jesus/Yeshua!

Luke 16:8
And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

No offense intended.... you don't term yourself Christian....but you are certainly far more so well informed regarding climate change than the majority of Christians seem to be!

Incidentally..... I have a friend who terms herself New Age... but she has out of body experiences and meets with Rabbi Jesus/Yeshua regularly. Do you know of others in the New Age Movement who are having similar experiences?

 

[DennisTate]

Given most Christian's ambivalence or outright anti-environmentalist sentiment, I do too find the whole discussion to be laughable in retrospect.

Zoness..... what do you personally think of the theory put forward by a New Mexico biologist and coach that one of the first responses to climate change should be investment in turning deserts green?

"So how is our problem of continental drying causing global warming? It all has to do with vegetation and sunlight. When sun light hits a plant, it causes a process which we call photosynthesis where the energy from the sun light creates oxygen for us to breathe, water for us to drink, and is stored as sugar for plants and animals to use. When the same sun light hits the soil, all of its energy turns into heat and is radiated back into the atmosphere.. ."

"Therefore, the less vegetation you have on the planet, the more sunlight is being turned into heat and the warmer the planet becomes...."

"Just take a look at any satellite picture of the earth showing heat and you will see that our deserts are the warmest spots on the planet by far. More heat is being generated by just one of the top four or five deserts than by all of our cities combined.... "

"The truth is that you can do more to decrease global warming by just reducing the average temperature for the Sahara Desert by one or two degrees than if we humans completely quit using fossil fuels and returned to the cave…."

"So, how would you start working to resolve this problem? Easy, cool the deserts and get some vegetation growing on them as soon as possible. But the method is much more complex than that. You have to use the prevailing trade winds in relation to the deserts to get the best results as quickly as possible and it will be extremely expensive…."

"Then we build desalination plants along the coast near these water sheds and pipe water to the tops or ridges of the water sheds…"

"We need to start working on this as soon as possible because, if the planet reaches a point to where it is warming faster than our technology can possibly stop or reverse this warming trend, then our planet is lost and all life will cease to exist on this planet within a relatively short period of time. We will need to start with the largest and hottest deserts because cooling them will have the greatest benefit in the least time (Global Warming II by biologist Carl Cantrell)."

The Sahara Forest Project success so far seem to verify that his theory is feasible!

Qatar

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Treating the symptoms is nice, but it would make even MORE sense to put an end to the increasing deforestation of tropical forests. About 8 million square kilometers (3 mil. square miles) of the 16 million square kilometers (5.8 mio squ.mi.) that still existed in 1947 are now irretrievably lost, and the rate of destruction is still increasing.
By 2030, only ten percent of the ancestral forests will be left - and re-planting trees cannot make up for the loss.

This catastrophe has got much to do with overpopulation and povery, as subsistence farming in the world's poorer countries accounts for approximately 47% of the loss. Accordingly, it's not just an environmental problem with devastasting consequences on many different levels. It's also an economical, political and social problem.

Deserts contribute a lot to the regulation of our climate, by the way. It would be patently unwise to try to get rid of them instead of finding alternatives to our excessively wasteful lifestyle (which we foolishly export to as many nations as possible). At the current rate of resource consumption, we'd need more than two and a half planets to sustain us - and that's the status quo at a time when only a tiny portion of mankind (read: us, and other wealthy nations) is embracing this lifestyle. If everyone was living the way we do, driving SUVs down the block to the next supermarket, stocking up on (plastic-)bottled water, herbicide-plastered vegetables grown in gigantic monocultures and factory-farmed meat, this planet would be TOAST at this point.

 

[ContraMundum]

A 'site' was all it was when the Muslims took over Jerusalem.

...a HOLY site. Otherwise why would the Muslims built on it? They know it was holy, so they built on it...thus desecrating the site for the original Abrahamic religion.

Uh, you got that backwards. It is Israel's excavations which are damaging the Aqsa Mosque.

...not what I heard. I've got relatives that can show you where the Pal's are destroying any sign of the Beit HaMikdash.

 

[ContraMundum]

Treating the symptoms is nice, but it would make even MORE sense to put an end to the increasing deforestation of tropical forests. About 8 million square kilometers (3 mil. square miles) of the 16 million square kilometers (5.8 mio squ.mi.) that still existed in 1947 are now irretrievably lost, and the rate of destruction is still increasing.
By 2030, only ten percent of the ancestral forests will be left - and re-planting trees cannot make up for the loss.

This catastrophe has got much to do with overpopulation and povery, as subsistence farming in the world's poorer countries accounts for approximately 47% of the loss. Accordingly, it's not just an environmental problem with devastasting consequences on many different levels. It's also an economical, political and social problem.

Deserts contribute a lot to the regulation of our climate, by the way. It would be patently unwise to try to get rid of them instead of finding alternatives to our excessively wasteful lifestyle (which we foolishly export to as many nations as possible). At the current rate of resource consumption, we'd need more than two and a half planets to sustain us - and that's the status quo at a time when only a tiny portion of mankind (read: us, and other wealthy nations) is embracing this lifestyle. If everyone was living the way we do, driving SUVs down the block to the next supermarket, stocking up on (plastic-)bottled water, herbicide-plastered vegetables grown in gigantic monocultures and factory-farmed meat, this planet would be TOAST at this point.

+1

 

[DennisTate]

Treating the symptoms is nice, but it would make even MORE sense to put an end to the increasing deforestation of tropical forests. About 8 million square kilometers (3 mil. square miles) of the 16 million square kilometers (5.8 mio squ.mi.) that still existed in 1947 are now irretrievably lost, and the rate of destruction is still increasing.
By 2030, only ten percent of the ancestral forests will be left - and re-planting trees cannot make up for the loss.

This catastrophe has got much to do with overpopulation and povery, as subsistence farming in the world's poorer countries accounts for approximately 47% of the loss. Accordingly, it's not just an environmental problem with devastasting consequences on many different levels. It's also an economical, political and social problem.

Deserts contribute a lot to the regulation of our climate, by the way. It would be patently unwise to try to get rid of them instead of finding alternatives to our excessively wasteful lifestyle (which we foolishly export to as many nations as possible). At the current rate of resource consumption, we'd need more than two and a half planets to sustain us - and that's the status quo at a time when only a tiny portion of mankind (read: us, and other wealthy nations) is embracing this lifestyle. If everyone was living the way we do, driving SUVs down the block to the next supermarket, stocking up on (plastic-)bottled water, herbicide-plastered vegetables grown in gigantic monocultures and factory-farmed meat, this planet would be TOAST at this point.

EXCELLENT comment!!!!!

Yes..... the number one priority must be to stop the deforestation that is occurring in the rain forest......… but we North Americans also have much improvement to make.....to get the beam out of our own eyes before attempting to take specks out of the eyes of other nations.

I worked at forestry for over twenty years here in Nova Scotia and our philosophy is HORRIBLE!!!

Hardwood trees have less economic value than softwood trees so the idea at this time seems to be to spray hardwood growths with goundup....... kill them off.... so that the softwood trees that are perhaps modified to be less vulnerable to roundup grow better.......... Several people who hunt rabbits tole me that the rabbits that they caught that were near some of these sites were full of tumors!!!!!

One of the reasons why such insanity dominates our forestry industry.....is because Richard Dawkins Ph. D. has people convinced that there is not intelligent design in nature........ so our egotistical scientists actually feel that they can improve various species of animal and plant.....and I assume they will soon use this on humans!!!!?????

The Book of Jasher is interesting! It seems to imply that genetic manipulation of species occurred even previous to the flood.

And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke the Lord; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals.

http://www.ccel.org/a/anonymous/jasher/4.htm

 

[mzungu]

Hardwood trees have less economic value than softwood trees so the idea at this time seems to be to spray hardwood growths with goundup....... kill them off.... so that the softwood trees that are perhaps modified to be less vulnerable to roundup grow better.......... Several people who hunt rabbits tole me that the rabbits that they caught that were near some of these sites were full of tumors!!!!!

This may be true for North America but in Sub Sahara Africa this could not be further from the truth. 98% of Sub Sahara people use firewood and or charcoal as a cooking fuel. Charcoal used is only made from hardwood.
I am in Tanzania and am trying to start a sustainable biomass charcoal company. Tanzania alone looses 2 x New York cities including the Burroughs every year. The devastation is causing a huge ecological impact. The people cannot afford other alternative types of fuel. We will replant various and mixed indigenous species and harvest in between on a rotational basis. This means that there will always be trees around the harvested trees for the fauna. Birds, insects, and other animals will have their natural habitat while the people will have a cost effective fuel to use for their cooking needs.

We will also buy refuses from the local farmers and help them replant the felled trees with indigenous species.

Monocultures are simply wrong! They are a disaster for the ecosystems!

 

[DennisTate]

This may be true for North America but in Sub Sahara Africa this could not be further from the truth. 98% of Sub Sahara people use firewood and or charcoal as a cooking fuel. Charcoal used is only made from hardwood.
I am in Tanzania and am trying to start a sustainable biomass charcoal company. Tanzania alone looses 2 x New York cities including the Burroughs every year. The devastation is causing a huge ecological impact. The people cannot afford other alternative types of fuel. We will replant various and mixed indigenous species and harvest in between on a rotational basis. This means that there will always be trees around the harvested trees for the fauna. Birds, insects, and other animals will have their natural habitat while the people will have a cost effective fuel to use for their cooking needs.

We will also buy refuses from the local farmers and help them replant the felled trees with indigenous species.

Monocultures are simply wrong! They are a disaster for the ecosystems!

I totally agree and deeply appreciate this comment!

My province Nova Scotia is central to what is termed The Atlantic Gateway...… so what you just stated.... surely could be information that would help us to find a better use for hardwood trees than to kill them with roundup!!!!!!!!?????

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

One of the reasons why such insanity dominates our forestry industry.....is because Richard Dawkins Ph. D. has people convinced that there is not intelligent design in nature........ so our egotistical scientists actually feel that they can improve various species of animal and plant.....and I assume they will soon use this on humans!!!!?????

I vehemently disagree with this paragraph: you don't need to believe in "intelligent design" in order to see everything I've pointed out above. In fact, you would not even need to be a theist. After all, I am not a theist in any traditional sense of the term, plus I consider "Intelligent Design" to be an unfortunate pseudo-science. If people need to anthropomorphize (the forces of) nature or the cosmic principles that govern it all, that's perfectly okay by me - as long as they do not try to sell these beliefs as science: it's not, it never can be, and it won't help at all.

I've seen similar arguments on all sides of this debate, and on vastly different topics. My 98-year-old great-aunt asserted that what's wrong with this planet was that people did not believe in reincarnation like she did: "if they knew they were coming back, and would bear the burden of everything they've done in their previous incarnations, they'd act differently". Likewise, I've seen atheists argue that religion was responsible for our willingness to perpetuate ecologically disastrous practices: "It's those Christians who believe that this life is just a prelude to a heavenly afterlife, along with the belief that the world's going to end anytime soon, anyway. To them, the continued integrity of the biosphere is a moot point to begin with. God will sort things out."

At first glance, those atheists would even seem to have a point: after all, the USA are perhaps THE most overwhelmingly religious nations among the first-world countries of this world - yet simultaneously the worst offenders in terms of wasteful lifestyles, resource consumption and pollution.

But I don't think this is really about theism vs. non-theism. After all, the Eastern Bloc devastated the environment even more profoundly than the west during the cold war, and atheist China is now choking with pollution and environmental degradation.

No, this problem runs much deeper than that, and it's got something to do with how our species has lived for thousands of years: see, mankind's mentality during the agrarian age was one of constant struggle AGAINST nature, right down to the most existential level. You needed to produce as many children as humanly possible, not only because it would improve your lot by providing you with a huge network of relations, but because not even half of them would survive to adulthood, statistically speaking. Clearing out forests, draining swamps, exterminating large predators, or otherwise driving back nature was considered a GOOD thing, and having so many resources that you could waste them on a sumptuous lifestyle was a lofty goal to aspire to, signifying status and wealth.
That mentality is still with us, deeply ingrained in virtually every culture. You can see it at work in China right now: due to industrialization (and factory farming), people can suddenly afford to eat meat seven days a week, three times a day - and to do so is a sign of prosperity, a status symbol. China is virtually EXPLODING with all sorts of diseases resulting from such dietary habits (not to mention with the side-effects of factory farming; contaminated ground water, hormones, antibiotics-resistant germs, etc.).

A tiny minority within those countries that have been exposed to (post-)industrial abundance are gradually coming to their senses: population growth is decreasing, some people reduce their meat intake to healthier levels or skip it altogether, people share cars, use public transport or ride a bike/take a walk, etc.; but judging by what's happening out there, it's WAY too little, and WAY too slow.

We've become so used to thinking of our species at something that's not only apart from, but in active opposition to "Nature", that we can barely adjust to the idea that we're basically in the middle of an elaborate, drawn out accidental suicide.

 

[mzungu]

I totally agree and deeply appreciate this comment!

My province Nova Scotia is central to what is termed The Atlantic Gateway...… so what you just stated.... surely could be information that would help us to find a better use for hardwood trees than to kill them with roundup!!!!!!!!?????

The sad thing is that the move towards a paperless society has not decreased demand for softwoods. IKEA and other mega furniture manufacturers use softwood for their furniture. Such furniture is not designed to last and this only exacerbates the problem. The only solution is to use alloy based furniture. I agree that such furniture may lack the warmth factor but hey; 7 billion people cannot continue to use wood for furniture. It is a matter of necessity!

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The sad thing is that the move towards a paperless society has not decreased demand for softwoods. IKEA and other mega furniture manufacturers use softwood for their furniture. Such furniture is not designed to last and this only exacerbates the problem. The only solution is to use alloy based furniture. I agree that such furniture may lack the warmth factor but hey; 7 billion people cannot continue to use wood for furniture. It is a matter of necessity!

And again, the problem boils down to the sheer insanity of the economic system we live in: things are designed to break, because a company can only be successful if it keeps selling more products each year - and that can only happen when people need new stuff all the time.

They've already brought people to the point where they discard perfectly functional items in order to buy new ones (just look at how many operational phones are trashed each year, and then consider the rare elements that go into building such electronic devices, etc.), but planned obsolescence is still a major business factor.

We, as a species, embrace a culture of extinction.