Heating up down under

eclipsenow · Wednesday at 5:16 PM

Servus said:
Yes, I understand your question. But it's basically hypothetical. Because there hasn't been any preventable harm. There's just been minor changes that would have occurred anyways. Name any significant harm that's taken place that could have been prevented, and how it could have been prevented. An actual starting point needs to be established, before a threshold can be determined.

Oh I see - you're denying that we have evidence of harm and do not need to take action and are asking what baseline has been established?

This was established decades ago!

The science says we need to be under 350 ppm to be safe. That's the goal. That's the climate benchmark.

Then there's the complex interaction between climate science and analysing what that means economically. That's where the economists sit with the climate experts, and run the models forward and pause them at a certain date, and ask "If this much rainfall has moved away from THAT region - what happens to their crops? What's the market value of alternative crops they might grow there? What's the difference? How else might that land be used? Or is it more likely to be abandoned!?"

That's the UK's Stern review (2006), and Australia's Garnaut Review.

In a nutshell, both concluded the earlier, the better - that while the costs of climate action would be significant, the costs of INACTION would devastate many economies, and risk pushing the climate biosphere and ice sheet geophysical systems into runaway warming.

Rockström’s team put the cost of inaction by 2050 at:-

sjastro · Wednesday at 6:13 PM

eclipsenow said:
Exactly! And the worrying part is that there are maybe 16 systems like this that are large enough to be called a feedback loop in their own right, and some of them trigger earlier than others. Some might only trigger at over 2.5 or 3 degrees of warming - and others even more. BUT some might trigger very soon - at maybe 1.5 or 1.8 degrees.

The obvious question then becomes are the earlier ones large enough to warm the earth till the next one triggers, and so on, falling like dominos in a row?

Is that what you meant by 'falls into a more stable equilibrium'?

I've set this Johan talk to the relevant moment - the graphics are fun.

If there was a single tipping point temperature only affecting the Greenland ice sheet, we would find it extremely difficult to reverse the melting ice sheet even with a drastic reduction in greenhouse emissions since the equilibrium is now far more stable.

As the video points out however there are a number of tipping point temperatures that are inextricably linked which can set off a cascade reaction.
If the tipping point temperature of 1.5⁰ C is reached, the Greenland ice sheet melting accelerates releasing large volumes of freshwater into the Atlantic ocean. Since freshwater has a lower density than saltwater it sits on top affecting ocean current circulation which redistributes heat around the globe and plays a fundamental role in regulating the climate.
If the tipping point of Atlantic ocean current circulation is reached where it collapses it can set off a number of other tipping points where global weather patterns are affected.

eclipsenow · Wednesday at 6:25 PM

sjastro said:
If there was a single tipping point temperature only affecting the Greenland ice sheet, we would find it extremely difficult to reverse the melting ice sheet even with a drastic reduction in greenhouse emissions since the equilibrium is now far more stable.

As the video points out however there are a number of tipping point temperatures that are inextricably linked which can set off a cascade reaction.
If the tipping point temperature of 1.5⁰ C is reached, the Greenland ice sheet melting accelerates releasing large volumes of freshwater into the Atlantic ocean. Since freshwater has a lower density than saltwater it sits on top affecting ocean current circulation which redistributes heat around the globe and plays a fundamental role in regulating the climate.
If the tipping point of Atlantic ocean current circulation is reached where it collapses it can set off a number of other tipping points where global weather patterns are affected.

And of course - just because Hollywood has totally exaggerated this effect does not make it invalid.
From my layman's understanding of the science for Europe, their winters could be incredibly harsh, while they still cook and burn in summer.
Without that extra heat dispersing at the poles, the equatorial regions could cook even faster.
The tropics might become uninhabitable - at least for normal surface living!

(The rise of the Morlock's anyone?

I should not joke. Not being able to run down the street to get a doctor in an emergency, or deal with a house fire or something, is a BIG deal. What - are those poorer countries at the equator going to be able to live underground and have droids do all the outdoors work?)

Ophiolite · Wednesday at 6:25 PM

Tuur said:
I think it does because it's in a constant flux going all the way back to before Snowball Earth. "Tipping point" implies permanence that doesn't exist. If tomorrow we woke up and found the world starting a series of volcanic eruptions like those that created the Deccan Traps, that would cause a fluctuation greater than any possible by humanity. And yet the conditions caused by the eruptions that caused the Deccan Traps didn't cause permanent change. Nor did the conditions that caused Snowball Earth. It's all in constant flux.

Even if AGW turned out to be true, humanity isn't going to mess around and break off the thermostat of the planet. Even if AGW is true and causes conditions that lasts for centuries, it will not be permanent. That's what I resent about the term "tipping point." It conveys an idea that is no way true if we think on geologic time scales. It might not even be true if we think in terms of centuries.

I do apologise. I hadn't realised that you were completely indifferent to the impact of AGW on humanity (and the rest of the biosphere) if we reach the tipping point. You are quite correct. The planet itself will go on. The biosphere will probably recover in some way. A much diminished and chastened humanity might even manage to drag itself up by its bootstraps and actually do thing wisely this time. Personally, I'd rather not take that risk.
I can slow my car from 100 mph to a complete stop, using my brakes, and experience no discomfort whatsoever. In the other hand, if I slow from 100 mph to zero in a fraction of a second by driving it into a concrete wall, neither I, or the car come out of it intact. Rate of change is the factor you don't care about, nor the consequences of the current rate of change. It's a suicidal position, but to each his own.

sjastro · Wednesday at 7:01 PM

Here are some suspected tipping points in Earth's geological and prehistory.

Period / Event	Approx. Time	Tipping Mechanism	What Tipped	Consequence	How a New Stable Equilibrium Was Reached
Snowball Earth transitions	720–635 million years ago	Ice–albedo feedback	Global ice coverage	Planet froze, then abruptly deglaciated	Volcanic CO₂ built up over millions of years → intense greenhouse warming melted ice → climate stabilized at warmer, ice-free equilibrium
Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM)	~56 million years ago	Carbon release (volcanic + methane hydrates)	Carbon cycle	Rapid 5–8 °C global warming, ocean acidification	Weathering and carbon burial slowly drew down CO₂ → radiative balance restored over ~200,000 years
Eocene–Oligocene transition	~34 million years ago	CO₂ decline + orbital cooling	Antarctic glaciation	Permanent ice sheets formed	New radiative–albedo balance established: reflective ice maintained colder global equilibrium
Younger Dryas (onset/termination)	~12,900–11,700 years ago	Meltwater disrupted AMOC	Ocean circulation	Abrupt cooling, then rapid warming	AMOC gradually re-established; radiative forcing and ocean–ice feedbacks stabilized modern Holocene climate
African Humid Period collapse	~5,500 years ago	Orbital precession reduced monsoons	Saharan vegetation and rainfall	Sahara turned from green to desert	New dry equilibrium formed where weak monsoons sustain desert albedo feedback
Dansgaard–Oeschger / Heinrich events	60,000–20,000 years ago	Ice–ocean–atmosphere coupling	N. Atlantic ice sheets / AMOC	Rapid glacial climate oscillations	Each event stabilized temporarily when ice-sheet geometry and circulation re-balanced heat transport

AMOC stands for the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.
It’s one of the most important components of Earth’s climate system, acting like a giant heat conveyor belt in the Atlantic Ocean.

Tuur · Wednesday at 7:05 PM

Ophiolite said:
I do apologise. I hadn't realised that you were completely indifferent to the impact of AGW on humanity (and the rest of the biosphere) if we reach the tipping point.

I'm someone who has cut off electricity for non-payment. Appeals based on feelings don't work too well. I'm quite willing to discuss the possible end of humanity without smile or tear. Given the climate range humans live in, that's not likely, but I'm willing to discuss it. Given some outliers I've seen, I'm very skeptical of various claims, and subscribe to the use of paleoclimatology and examining the last time such and such conditions existed. Call it dial-a-projection. Thus my interest in the natural range of pecan trees overlayed a map of tropical system paths since such records have been kept. Mature pecan trees don't hold up to the winds that well.

I'm also cynical about breathless reporting of every wiggle of a temperature curve when that records barely go back 150 years, if that. Recorded temperature even by the 18th Century is spotty, and really non-existent. Note that this isn't how it's reported.

Tuur · Wednesday at 7:41 PM

sjastro said:
Reaching a tipping point doesn't mean the effects are permanent. It means climate inertia increases making it more resistant to respond to positive changes such as cooling if we were to suddenly stop putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It may take centuries before the cooling effects are seen.

Thank you. That is indeed possible. I visualize climate as much like a sphere of liquid in weightlessness, with the surface moving this way and that; various disturbances on the surface, and yet remaining concentrated around the center of gravity. The one constant about climate, whether or not AGW is a thing, is that it's not constant.

I doubt there's even a kind of equilibrium of any sort. It's constantly in flux. The length of variation might be measured in centuries, but it's still change.

Ophiolite · Wednesday at 8:06 PM

Tuur said:
I'm someone who has cut off electricity for non-payment. Appeals based on feelings don't work too well. I'm quite willing to discuss the possible end of humanity without smile or tear. Given the climate range humans live in, that's not likely, but I'm willing to discuss it. Given some outliers I've seen, I'm very skeptical of various claims, and subscribe to the use of paleoclimatology and examining the last time such and such conditions existed. Call it dial-a-projection. Thus my interest in the natural range of pecan trees overlayed a map of tropical system paths since such records have been kept. Mature pecan trees don't hold up to the winds that well.

I'm also cynical about breathless reporting of every wiggle of a temperature curve when that records barely go back 150 years, if that. Recorded temperature even by the 18th Century is spotty, and really non-existent. Note that this isn't how it's reported.

If that reply actually revealed to me that you had the slightest idea of the facts, not the feelings, the facts, the evidence, the conclusions of the works of thousands of experts; that you actually had a grasp, even a sliver of awareness of the significance of the data, if almost every remark you make didn't resonate with misperception, then I might have some sympathy (that's a feeling), but I'm left with the observation that you have no idea what you are talking about. (That's a fact.)

sjastro · Wednesday at 9:19 PM

Tuur said:
Thank you. That is indeed possible. I visualize climate as much like a sphere of liquid in weightlessness, with the surface moving this way and that; various disturbances on the surface, and yet remaining concentrated around the center of gravity. The one constant about climate, whether or not AGW is a thing, is that it's not constant.

I doubt there's even a kind of equilibrium of any sort. It's constantly in flux. The length of variation might be measured in centuries, but it's still change.

Thermal equilibrium plays an important role. If there was no AGW the incoming solar energy in the form of long wave UV and visible light which warms the surface equals the energy radiated back into space in the form of long wave infrared.
Thermal equilibrium is established and the global mean temperature remains stable.

AGW disrupts the thermal equilibrium as greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation in the troposphere reducing the amount of energy radiated back into space. The response of the climate is to shift to a new thermal equilibrium at a higher global temperature.

eclipsenow · 2025-10-23T00:09:19-0500

Ophiolite said:
I can slow my car from 100 mph to a complete stop, using my brakes, and experience no discomfort whatsoever. In the other hand, if I slow from 100 mph to zero in a fraction of a second by driving it into a concrete wall, neither I, or the car come out of it intact. Rate of change is the factor you don't care about, nor the consequences of the current rate of change. It's a suicidal position, but to each his own.

Exactly! Even Dr James Mann makes the point that if the earth was going to go through the same amount of climate change - but across a vast period like 100,000 years - there would be no issue. We would slowly adjust.

SPEED: But it's the fact that the various climate and weather bands / zones around the planet could shift towards the poles so fast that will challenge our agriculture, the fresh water distribution will change so fast whole cities could soon be struggling to find enough fresh water, etc. We're changing the climate even faster than the regular Milankovitch cycles! (I understand that previous ice ages took something like 800 years to fully settle in.)

BARRIER: There's also an EXTRA challenge any nature has to confront this time, in contrast to our previous ice ages. Us, and our agriculture! Previously animals and even trees could slowly migrate out of the path of the ice sheets, or conversely in a warming phase go from the plains up into the mountains where it was cooler. But how do they do that now they're surrounded by this inland 'sea' of crops and livestock that cover over half the habitable land of the planet!

eclipsenow · 2025-10-23T00:28:03-0500

Aaron112 said:
The Eternal One, Almighty Creator, magnificently and generously made the earth very stable (overall), (so that all the machinations of all mankind are accounted for) to maintain /orchestrate/ the world happenings in the totally best possible way in His Plan for men, especially "for the good of those who love God and are called according to His Purpose" (usually not related to man's ideas/ purpose/ goals/ and especially not man's greedy grasping for profit and control over others) ......
the timing of earthquakes , tsunamis, hurricanes , tornadoes, lightnings, storms, sunny days, all perfectly orchestrated in infinite love and wisdom and knowledge with no spot nor wrinkle, never a mistake !

< theology aside >

And yet there was the fall, and we were kicked out of the 'garden of Eden' which had the 'tree of life'. (All highly symbolic language.)

We are exposed to the raw elements of nature.

So if someone digs up a bunch of ore and smelts it into a knife - and then uses this useful too to stab his neighbour - he commits murder. We do not only see murder described throughout the bible - we see it within the opening pages of Genesis - the very book you appear to be drawing on to justify your position?

Indeed - Genesis also records a number of famines - some of them horrific! It's how Joseph becomes "Prime Minister" (under Pharoah) of Egypt.

In other words, I see no biblical mandate for assuming we are protected from our own actions. Sure - generally speaking - we are to "seek first his kingdom" and all this will be given us. However that also involves working and providing for our families, doing good works, "praying for the city because if it prospers so will we" (and that was Jeremiah's instructions to the Jews in CAPTIVITY in Babylon.)

In other words - bad things can happen to God's people. Read Revelation - which describes these 'last days' (2000 years and counting) we are in. Indeed - in God's judgement he often hands us over to the consequences of our actions. (Romans 1.)

There is no "Golden Ticket" for God's people this side of eternity. There are Christian climatologists. I think you should correct both your biblical understanding and scientific understanding of this subject by listen to the following podcast.

I wish you well in this endeavour.

Dr John Dickson (Phd in theology & history) interviews Dr Katharine Hayhoe (Christian climatologist.)

Click here - it's awesome! Good Earth

< / theology aside >

Tuur · 2025-10-23T05:29:23-0500

Ophiolite said:
If that reply actually revealed to me that you had the slightest idea of the facts, not the feelings, the facts, the evidence, the conclusions of the works of thousands of experts; that you actually had a grasp, even a sliver of awareness of the significance of the data, if almost every remark you make didn't resonate with misperception, then I might have some sympathy (that's a feeling), but I'm left with the observation that you have no idea what you are talking about. (That's a fact.)

Translation: I disagree with you.

Tuur · 2025-10-23T06:06:08-0500

sjastro said:
Thermal equilibrium plays an important role. If there was no AGW the incoming solar energy in the form of long wave UV and visible light which warms the surface equals the energy radiated back into space in the form of long wave infrared.
Thermal equilibrium is established and the global mean temperature remains stable.

AGW disrupts the thermal equilibrium as greenhouse gases trap infrared radiation in the troposphere reducing the amount of energy radiated back into space. The response of the climate is to shift to a new thermal equilibrium at a higher global temperature.

Here's our disagreement: I say there's no real equilibrium. Even if there were no humans on the planet, CO2 would fluctuate; it has in the past. It's all constantly varying, and not just CO2. There's fluctuations in output from the sun, not terribly great but the sun is very big and the earth is very small. At the moment discounting variations from axis wobble and when aphelion and perihelion occurs in respect to the seasons because, while these are variations, they are over long spans of time. Also discounting the predicted brightening of the sun, since that's longer term than variations due to the earth's orbit. If I wanted to be extra persnickety, I'd throw in the effects of continental drift. But even without long them effects, it's not fixed. It just seems that way to us because we're relatively short lived.

What you term equilibrium I think of as a sort of inertia based on the time it takes for change. We know that CO2 can be naturally removed because it's happened before. It takes time, but it happened. "Tipping point" is a loaded term. Even if AGW turns out to be real, it's not permanently changing the thermostat settings. "Tipping point" implies otherwise.

sjastro · 2025-10-23T09:23:39-0500

Tuur said:
Here's our disagreement: I say there's no real equilibrium. Even if there were no humans on the planet, CO2 would fluctuate; it has in the past. It's all constantly varying, and not just CO2. There's fluctuations in output from the sun, not terribly great but the sun is very big and the earth is very small. At the moment discounting variations from axis wobble and when aphelion and perihelion occurs in respect to the seasons because, while these are variations, they are over long spans of time. Also discounting the predicted brightening of the sun, since that's longer term than variations due to the earth's orbit. If I wanted to be extra persnickety, I'd throw in the effects of continental drift. But even without long them effects, it's not fixed. It just seems that way to us because we're relatively short lived.

What you term equilibrium I think of as a sort of inertia based on the time it takes for change. We know that CO2 can be naturally removed because it's happened before. It takes time, but it happened. "Tipping point" is a loaded term. Even if AGW turns out to be real, it's not permanently changing the thermostat settings. "Tipping point" implies otherwise.

Let's look at the physics of a blackbody where the incoming electromagnetic energy is absorbed and an equal amount of outgoing electromagnetic energy is radiated. In terms of photons the blackbody radiates more photons at lower energies than it absorbs of the higher energy photons for the energy balance to occur.
Under these conditions the blackbody is at thermal equilibrium at some given temperature.
If the incoming electromagnetic energy is changed, the blackbody will radiate electromagnetic energy at different wavelengths at a different thermal equilibrium temperature.

The Earth is not a perfect blackbody technically it is a gray body but the principles are the same, without AGW it should radiate the same amount of electromagnetic energy it receives from the Sun. The problem with your argument is you have only considered changes in the solar radiation reaching the Earth, not how the Earth adjusts the equilibrium so the outgoing electromagnetic radiation also changes so energy balance is preserved.

The problem with AGW is that while CO2 levels have been much higher in the Earth's geological past, the rate of increase is unprecedented some 100-500x greater.
As a result the Earth has not had the time to adjust to a new thermal equilibrium and temperatures continue to rise.
When temperatures reach a trigger point the Earth will have to deal with a stable equilibrium which is not thermodynamical but as previously discussed based on potential theory.

Neogaia777 · 2025-10-23T09:35:45-0500

Revelation 11:18

God talks about what could be maybe some environmental consequences after that maybe.

Do I know for sure that this is what God means in this passage? No, I don't, but it is interesting however.

Put to ruin those ruining or destroying the earth, etc.

Unleashing the four corners of the earth, and certain what could be environmental consequences maybe, could mean this, or be a result of this also maybe? But I don't know that for sure however, etc.

God Bless.

eclipsenow · 2025-10-23T18:02:37-0500

Neogaia777 said:
Revelation 11:18

God talks about what could be maybe some environmental consequences after that maybe.

Do I know for sure that this is what God means in this passage? No, I don't, but it is interesting however.

Put to ruin those ruining or destroying the earth, etc.

Unleashing the four corners of the earth, and certain what could be environmental consequences maybe, could mean this, or be a result of this also maybe? But I don't know that for sure however, etc.

God Bless.

This is a science forum - but I'm happy to discuss the theology of this over in this thread I have just joined. Failed climate predictions from false prophets

eclipsenow · 2025-10-23T18:17:37-0500

Tuur said:
Here's our disagreement: I say there's no real equilibrium. Even if there were no humans on the planet, CO2 would fluctuate; it has in the past.

If you are talking DEEP past - the earth was a lot hotter then and had far more volcanoes spewing CO2 out all the time. In fact - these volcanoes may have saved life on earth from the Snowball Earth by poking through the planet wide ice sheets and spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere - eventually cooking the place. The storms that resulted had such severe acid rain from all that CO2 that it melted rock!

Tuur said:
It's all constantly varying, and not just CO2.

Yes - and they know why. There are many climate forcings, from BIG SLOW ones to smaller short ones.

EG: There's the "long" carbon cycle - with CO2 being trapped by algae life in the bottom of the ocean for millions of years, then getting caught up in a magma flow and being spewed back out a volcano. This has gradually shrunk with the slow cooling of the planet over tens of millions of years - as a general trend.

But sometimes rare volcanic events can spew more CO2 than normal - and cook the place up again.
This is not happening today, and volcanoes are about 1% of our emissions.

Tuur said:
There's fluctuations in output from the sun, not terribly great but the sun is very big and the earth is very small.

All measured and understood by the IPCC. IF you bothered to read their reports!

Tuur said:
At the moment discounting variations from axis wobble and when aphelion and perihelion occurs in respect to the seasons because, while these are variations, they are over long spans of time.

Milankovitch cycles help the earth COOL from where we are - not COOK into a hothouse earth!
Also - about 40% of the depths of the coolest phase of an ice age are from CO2 sources getting trapped by encroaching ice sheets!

Even with something as enormous as the wobble of our planet on it's merry way around the sun, changing the angles sunlight hits the earth, CO2 has a role!

Tuur said:
Also discounting the predicted brightening of the sun, since that's longer term than variations due to the earth's orbit.

Yes! Agreed! So we have to be MORE careful than the dinosaurs about how much CO2 is in the air.

The sun is 2% warmer than back then! That's another long term forcing!
So is the position of the continents on the planet.

But these are such long term things that we will not notice them.

We've nearly doubled CO2 in the geological blink of an eye!

Tuur said:
If I wanted to be extra persnickety, I'd throw in the effects of continental drift.

Ah, good. Yes. But as if we're not going to adapt to that in time, hey? :doh:

We replace a good portion of our cities every 60 years. Continental drift is in the 10's of millions of years!

Tuur said:
But even without long them effects, it's not fixed. It just seems that way to us because we're relatively short lived.

Right - so how do the IPCC study the natural forcings and conclude CO2 is what's cooking us, hmmmmmmm?

Tuur said:
What you term equilibrium I think of as a sort of inertia based on the time it takes for change. We know that CO2 can be naturally removed because it's happened before. It takes time, but it happened. "Tipping point" is a loaded term.

No - it's a scientifically valid concept explained in layman's terms.

Basically, climate activists are saying "It REALLY looks like there's an ice-berg ahead" to the Captain of the Titanic. It hasn't hit yet - and even if it does - there are still the lifeboats. But I'd rather save this beautiful ship!

Tuur said:
Even if AGW turns out to be real, it's not permanently changing the thermostat settings. "Tipping point" implies otherwise.

Watch Johan!

If you're saying "Permanently" in terms of the entire planetary life of the earth - so what? On that timescale, of course climate is not 'fixed'. Eventually the CO2 might get sucked back up, the surface of the earth might finally be repopulated with plant life - and ice ages might eventually return. But that's a LONG time away from a human civilisation point of view!

Barring the Lord's return - the sun would eventually expand and burn the earth! But that's not what we are talking about!

We are talking about the optimal way to keep both human civilisation and the biosphere intact, the way we like it, now.
People and planet.

Watch Johan.

Neogaia777 · 2025-10-23T18:33:26-0500

eclipsenow said:
This is a science forum - but I'm happy to discuss the theology of this over in this thread I have just joined. Failed climate predictions from false prophets

You're the one who was talking with another poster as to whether or not God cared about the climate, or environment, or our care of it, etc. But, don't worry, I'm done, ok. On to other things now, ok.

Take Care.

Tuur · 2025-10-23T19:04:58-0500

eclipsenow said:
If you are talking DEEP past - the earth was a lot hotter then and had far more volcanoes spewing CO2 out all the time. In fact - these volcanoes may have saved life on earth from the Snowball Earth by poking through the planet wide ice sheets and spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere - eventually cooking the place. The storms that resulted had such severe acid rain from all that CO2 that it melted rock!

Eclipsenow:

That particular discussion was on the subject of equilibriums. The only way it intersects a discussion of AGW is whether AGW could form a new equilibrium. I'll point out outliers, hyperbole, and outright panic, but won't claim that AGW is or isn't happening. The issue here is equilibriums, which, from what little is understood about climate, I don't think really exist. It's a rare person who lives a century, and that's not even a long yawn climate-wise.

eclipsenow · 2025-10-23T19:30:05-0500

Neogaia777 said:
You're the one who was talking with another poster as to whether or not God cared about the climate, or environment, or our care of it, etc. But, don't worry, I'm done, ok. On to other things now, ok.

Take Care.

I know - I deleted all those posts! I should not have encouraged that in this forum.
I have PM'd them and asked them to join me in the theology section.

Heating up down under

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Rockström’s team put the cost of inaction by 2050 at:-​

Attachments

Newbie

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Newbie

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Old Soul

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Old Soul

Well-Known Member

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works

Similar threads

Rockström’s team put the cost of inaction by 2050 at:-