Global warming and the end

[ptomwebster]

...
We just don't know. (And I've seen enough failed 'prophecy interpretations' in this forum to ignore any whacked-out end times 'predictions' you might make. Matthew 24 simply says we do NOT know, and CANNOT know).

No one is making predictions. You and your theologians have not read Matthew 24: 36 with understanding, but that's alright because you/they are not supposed to "know." It can be known. Unfortunately it will be like in the story about the boy crying "wolf!"

God will bring about Global warming not man.

 

[Biblewriter]

Just how much do your "peer reviewed scientists" imagine that the earth can be warmed by anthropomorphic forces?

The chart below, which is figure 7-8 at http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html, shows, by simple inspection, that the CO2 in the atmosphere is currently blocking upwards of half of the total upward radiation it could block if the atmosphere were sufficiently rich in CO2 to render it totally opaque to radiation in the range of wavelengths that CO2 absorbs, which is 14 to 18 micrometers. That is, CO2 is already absorbing upwards of half the total upward radiation it could absorb if the atmosphere were 100% CO2!

Now the data from your “peer-reviewed” scientists, which you included in post #96 of this thread, says that CO2 is currently absorbing 1.7 watts per square meter of this upward radiation. If we give you the benefit of the doubt and say that an additional 1.7 watts per square meter of upward radiation could be absorbed, let’s see what happens when we apply this number to the data in your diagram titled “The Greenhouse Effect,” from your same post #96 in this thread. Since all the numbers in this diagram are in watts per square meter, I will not repeat this unit each time I use data from your diagram. Nor will I say allegedly, or supposedly, as would properly be added to each of these numbers.

The atmosphere is currently absorbing 67 from the sun and 452 from the earth, making a total of 519. The atmosphere is currently re-radiating 195 into space and returning 324 to earth. This 324 is 62.4% of the total 519 the atmosphere absorbs. So 62.4% of the additional 1.7, or 1.06 watts per square meter, is the maximum heat that can be added to the earth, even if the atmosphere were increased to 100% CO2.

Now how much can that additional 1.06 watts per square meter heat the earth? The earth is currently receiving 168 from the sun and 324 from the atmosphere, for a total of 492. This heats it to 14 degrees C, or 287.15 K. Increasing the heat input by 1.06 could then increase the absolute temperature to a maximum of 287.15 * (492 + 1.06) / 492 = 287.77 degrees K, or 14.62 degrees C.

This calculation is greatly oversimplified to make it easier to understand. For instance, it does not take into effect the fact that temperature is not directly proportional to radiative energy, as this oversimplified calculation assumed. It also does not take into effect the additional outgoing radiation that would result from any temperature increase, or the fact that this heat increase would move the radiation curve further away from the peak absorption region for CO2. Nor does it take into effect the fact that the internal heat from the center of the earth also affects its surface temperature. But all those considerations would make the calculated available temperature increase even less that that shown in this oversimplifiction.

Even with all these simplifications, this calculation clearly demonstrates that the maximum increase in the earth’s temperature that could be caused by increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere to 100%, would be just over 0.6 degrees C. Such facts, which can be readily deduced by simple calculations, show why so few physicists, engineers, and others who know the real facts of the physical sciences involved, are deceived by the myth of "Anthropometric Global Warming."

Are we expected to believe that a grand total available temperature increase of just over half a degree C could make the polar icecaps melt, flooding the coastal areas, and completely change our climate? That is only slightly more that your "peer-reviewed" scientists claim it has already increased, as shown in the chart in your post #122. Yet we have experienced neither any significant rise in sea levels or any drastic changes in climate.

 

[ptomwebster]

Does God returning soon let us ignore the book of James in the meantime? Do you just step over the poor and say "God bless you!" Do you just ignore the law, refuse to pay your taxes, and make a general nuisance of yourself and ignore your duties because Judgement is coming?

....

My paying taxes are what helps shelter and feed the poor that you want to step over. We also teach them how to do a job so they can feed themselves. I pay plenty of taxes.

And I certainly don't see what that has to do with your imitation "global warming."

 

[Biblewriter]

And I certainly don't see what that has to do with your imitation "global warming."[/FONT]

Arkansas locations experience record snowfall, low temperatures for May - Magnolia Reporter - Magnolia, Arkansas News: Regional News

 

[eclipsenow]

What does all this mean?

http://sincedutch.wordpress.com/2013/04/07/472013-haarp-generates-plasma-rings-diagram-looks-exactly-like-what-we-see-on-radar/
http://sincedutch.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/vlfhaarprings/
http://sincedutch.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/want-to-know-about-weather-modification-haarp-vlf-hf-and-chemtrails-want-to-prove-it-to-a-non-believer-here-you-go/

Co2's heat trapping properties are demonstrable in a lab. That is, we don't even need to DEMONSTRATE it any more. We look it up like we look up the boiling point of water. It's in textbooks, libraries, databases. It's old science. It's established. And the math of the radiative forcing equation says that it's redirecting 1.7 watts / m2 of the atmosphere. That's a LOT of energy. Try explaining to us how HAARP heats the atmosphere that much, will you?

And, of course, Global Warming was not invented by Al Gore. It happens. It's consistent with the laws of physics. And different people have been coming to the same conclusion for hundreds of years!

Seventy-five years ago this month an amateur weather-watcher from West Sussex published a landmark paper in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society directly linking the burning of fossil fuels to the warming of the Earth's atmosphere.
Guy Callendar was a successful steam engineer by trade, but in his spare time he was a keen meteorologist. In April 1938, his paper, "The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature" (pdf), which built on the earlier work of John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius, was published with little fanfare or impact. It was only in the proceeding decades that the true significance of his conclusions would be heralded.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2013/apr/22/guy-callendar-climate-fossil-fuels

 

[Biblewriter]

Co2's heat trapping properties are demonstrable in a lab. That is, we don't even need to DEMONSTRATE it any more. We look it up like we look up the boiling point of water. It's in textbooks, libraries, databases. It's old science. It's established. And the math of the radiative forcing equation says that it's redirecting 1.7 watts / m2 of the atmosphere. That's a LOT of energy.

The limits to the heat trapping properties of Co2 are also well known.

 

[Zanting]

I did post some research links...anyone wish to explain the results they found?

 

[eclipsenow]

The limits to the heat trapping properties of Co2 are also well known.

Pffft, what does that even mean? Dude, even feathers can tip the scales, if you throw enough of them. And how many tons of Co2 are we emitting each year?

 

[eclipsenow]

What does all this mean?

http://sincedutch.wordpress.com/2013/04/07/472013-haarp-generates-plasma-rings-diagram-looks-exactly-like-what-we-see-on-radar/
http://sincedutch.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/vlfhaarprings/
http://sincedutch.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/want-to-know-about-weather-modification-haarp-vlf-hf-and-chemtrails-want-to-prove-it-to-a-non-believer-here-you-go/

Unmitigated rubbish — if you're proposing that these HAARP things are more powerful than annual Co2 emissions. The layers of the atmosphere that are meant to be effected are simply too far away to respond to such a small emission. Stick to the peer-reviewed science, and keep away from the Sci-Fi conspiracy nutters. They'll do your head in. I prefer a good Peter F Hamilton Space Opera to that stuff.

 

[Zanting]

Unmitigated rubbish — if you're proposing that these HAARP things are more powerful than annual Co2 emissions. The layers of the atmosphere that are meant to be effected are simply too far away to respond to such a small emission. Stick to the peer-reviewed science, and keep away from the Sci-Fi conspiracy nutters. They'll do your head in. I prefer a good Peter F Hamilton Space Opera to that stuff.

And you know that this research is rubbish? How do you know that?

 

[eclipsenow]

And you know that this research is rubbish? How do you know that?

Did you read the qualifying statement? " if you're proposing that these HAARP things are more powerful than annual Co2 emissions."

I seriously don't have time to read every paper on HAARP beginning to end. IF you're saying that HAARP is to blame for global warming, then which particular paragraph from which particular study concludes that? Who wrote it, did they submit it to the IPCC peer review process, and why would you believe one lone nutter against the thousands involved in the peer-reviewed process of the IPCC, especially when the head Chairman was a Christian? (The first chairman, Sir John Houghton). As it is, one of the papers you contributed actually seemed to be saying HAARP didn't release that much energy anyway.

As for HAARP... here's half a dozen links you can read.


"HAARP is the subject of numerous conspiracy theories. Various individuals have speculated hidden motives and capabilities to the project, and have blamed it for triggering catastrophes such as floods, droughts, hurricanes, thunderstorms, earthquakes in Iran, Pakistan, Haiti and the Philippines, major power outages, the downing of TWA Flight 800, Gulf War syndrome, and chronic fatigue syndrome.[18][4][19]
Allegations include the following:

• A Russian military journal wrote that ionospheric testing would "trigger a cascade of electrons that could flip earth's magnetic poles".[20]
• The European Parliament and the Alaska state legislature held hearings about HAARP, the former citing "environmental concerns".[21]
• Author of the self-published Angels Don't Play This HAARP, Nick Begich has told lecture audiences that HAARP could trigger earthquakes and turn the upper atmosphere into a giant lens so that "the sky would literally appear to burn".[20]
• Former Governor of Minnesota and noted conspiracy theorist Jesse Ventura questioned whether the government is using the site to manipulate the weather or to bombard people with mind-controlling radio waves. An Air Force spokeswoman said Ventura made an official request to visit the research station but was rejected-"he and his crew showed up at HAARP anyway and were denied access".[22]
• Physicist Bernard Eastlund claimed that HAARP includes technology based on his own patents that has the capability to modify weather and neutralize satellites.[3]

Stanford University professor Umran Inan told Popular Science that weather-control conspiracy theories were “completely uninformed,” explaining that “there’s absolutely nothing we can do to disturb the Earth’s [weather] systems. Even though the power HAARP radiates is very large, it’s minuscule compared with the power of a lightning flash—and there are 50 to 100 lightning flashes every second. HAARP’s intensity is very small.”[3]
Computer scientist David Naiditch characterizes HAARP as "a magnet for conspiracy theorists", saying that HAARP attracts their attention because "its purpose seems deeply mysterious to the scientifically uninformed".[4] Journalist Sharon Weinberger called HAARP "the Moby Dick of conspiracy theories" and said the popularity of conspiracy theories often overshadows the benefits HAARP may provide to the scientific community.[23][24] Austin Baird writing in the Alaska Dispatch said, "What makes HAARP susceptible to conspiracy criticism is simple. The facility doesn't open its doors in the same way as other federally-funded research facilities around the country, and it doesn't go to great efforts to explain the importance of its research to the public."[18]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program#Conspiracy_theories

 

[Zanting]

Did you read the qualifying statement? " if you're proposing that these HAARP things are more powerful than annual Co2 emissions."

I seriously don't have time to read every paper on HAARP beginning to end. IF you're saying that HAARP is to blame for global warming, then which particular paragraph from which particular study concludes that? Who wrote it, did they submit it to the IPCC peer review process, and why would you believe one lone nutter against the thousands involved in the peer-reviewed process of the IPCC, especially when the head Chairman was a Christian? (The first chairman, Sir John Houghton). As it is, one of the papers you contributed actually seemed to be saying HAARP didn't release that much energy anyway.

As for HAARP... here's half a dozen links you can read.


"HAARP is the subject of numerous conspiracy theories. Various individuals have speculated hidden motives and capabilities to the project, and have blamed it for triggering catastrophes such as floods, droughts, hurricanes, thunderstorms, earthquakes in Iran, Pakistan, Haiti and the Philippines, major power outages, the downing of TWA Flight 800, Gulf War syndrome, and chronic fatigue syndrome.[18][4][19]
Allegations include the following:

• A Russian military journal wrote that ionospheric testing would "trigger a cascade of electrons that could flip earth's magnetic poles".[20]
• The European Parliament and the Alaska state legislature held hearings about HAARP, the former citing "environmental concerns".[21]
• Author of the self-published Angels Don't Play This HAARP, Nick Begich has told lecture audiences that HAARP could trigger earthquakes and turn the upper atmosphere into a giant lens so that "the sky would literally appear to burn".[20]
• Former Governor of Minnesota and noted conspiracy theorist Jesse Ventura questioned whether the government is using the site to manipulate the weather or to bombard people with mind-controlling radio waves. An Air Force spokeswoman said Ventura made an official request to visit the research station but was rejected-"he and his crew showed up at HAARP anyway and were denied access".[22]
• Physicist Bernard Eastlund claimed that HAARP includes technology based on his own patents that has the capability to modify weather and neutralize satellites.[3]

Stanford University professor Umran Inan told Popular Science that weather-control conspiracy theories were “completely uninformed,” explaining that “there’s absolutely nothing we can do to disturb the Earth’s [weather] systems. Even though the power HAARP radiates is very large, it’s minuscule compared with the power of a lightning flash—and there are 50 to 100 lightning flashes every second. HAARP’s intensity is very small.”[3]
Computer scientist David Naiditch characterizes HAARP as "a magnet for conspiracy theorists", saying that HAARP attracts their attention because "its purpose seems deeply mysterious to the scientifically uninformed".[4] Journalist Sharon Weinberger called HAARP "the Moby Dick of conspiracy theories" and said the popularity of conspiracy theories often overshadows the benefits HAARP may provide to the scientific community.[23][24] Austin Baird writing in the Alaska Dispatch said, "What makes HAARP susceptible to conspiracy criticism is simple. The facility doesn't open its doors in the same way as other federally-funded research facilities around the country, and it doesn't go to great efforts to explain the importance of its research to the public."[18]"
High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wasn't saying anything...I was simply posting the research that has been done. And there is always someone calling something controversial a conspiracy theory. And quite frankly, as soon as research is done that raises questions against government's official explanations...other "experts" debunk it without addressing the issues raised. You've just shown that with the examples you provided...they all say they are conspiracy theories for this or that reason, but they don't talk about the research itself. They don't list the issues and show how the research is not accurate, or flawed or wrong. They just "claim" (again in a derogatory fashion) that it is conspiracy theories for nut cases. Go figure.

In the past, conspiracy theorists and whistleblowers were respected for keeping things open and honest, whether it involved big business or government. Today...they are condemned.

 

[eclipsenow]

I wasn't saying anything...I was simply posting the research that has been done. And there is always someone calling something controversial a conspiracy theory. And quite frankly, as soon as research is done that raises questions against government's official explanations...other "experts" debunk it without addressing the issues raised. You've just shown that with the examples you provided...they all say they are conspiracy theories for this or that reason, but they don't talk about the research itself. They don't list the issues and show how the research is not accurate, or flawed or wrong. They just "claim" (again in a derogatory fashion) that it is conspiracy theories for nut cases. Go figure.

In the past, conspiracy theorists and whistleblowers were respected for keeping things open and honest, whether it involved big business or government. Today...they are condemned.

The research is in the links provided by the wiki.

Whistleblowers are heroes. Conspiracy theorists that keep promoting their whacky books after receiving a peer-reviewed answer are not.

 

[Jipsah]

Unmitigated rubbish — if you're proposing that these HAARP things are more powerful than annual Co2 emissions.

HAARP sounds like a lot of power to those who don't really understand how HF radio works. The HAARP folks are feeding a really big HF dipole array with about 3.5 megawatts, firing straight up. The arrays yield them close to 100 db gain (doing this from memory, here), which yields 5 or so gigawatts of Effective Radiated Power. That's the scary bit. That's best case, though, and at the longer frequencies they're actually using they're not gonna get that much gain. But they're still chucking a lot of RF skyward. BUT... power decreases by the inverse square of the distance traveled, and also gets whacked by atmospheric attenuation, so when it finally makes it to the lower ionosphere you're hitting it with +- 3 microwatts (0.000003 watt) per square centimeter (and yeah, I looked that one up). Still a signal that your average ham would like to see, but not all that killin' much in the great scheme of things.

(Old Man Flashback - I was trying to talk to a ham in Queensland named Jack on 20 meters one evening long ago, and getting a lot of interference. He suggested that I try "long path", up and over and around the world. I turned my antenna 180 degrees, and all the snap-crackle-pop disappeared and it sounded like a groundwave conversation instead of an 8-hop 23,000-odd mile trip. He 'splained how it worked, and gave me the short form of chordal propagation, and I knew I was talking to a genuine old time ham. Wasn't the last time I talked long path to Oz or New Zealand, either.)

The layers of the atmosphere that are meant to be effected are simply too far away to respond to such a small emission.

Bingo. Most of the stuff they're transmitting either bounces back, straight down, or rips on through the ionosphere into space. The rest heats up the i-sphere - a very little.

Didja see the movie where the magician uses a Tesla coil to create duplicates of himself to do tricks? Michael Caine and Hugh Jackman in it. Proved positively than you you can use a Tesla coil to do anything. HAARP's very much the same thing, Black Magic.

 

[eclipsenow]

HAARP sounds like a lot of power to those who don't really understand how HF radio works. The HAARP folks are feeding a really big HF dipole array with about 3.5 megawatts, firing straight up. The arrays yield them close to 100 db gain (doing this from memory, here), which yields 5 or so gigawatts of Effective Radiated Power. That's the scary bit. That's best case, though, and at the longer frequencies they're actually using they're not gonna get that much gain. But they're still chucking a lot of RF skyward. BUT... power decreases by the inverse square of the distance traveled, and also gets whacked by atmospheric attenuation, so when it finally makes it to the lower ionosphere you're hitting it with +- 3 microwatts (0.000003 watt) per square centimeter (and yeah, I looked that one up). Still a signal that your average ham would like to see, but not all that killin' much in the great scheme of things.

Microwatts... but that's nothing! What are the HAARP people on about?

(Old Man Flashback - I was trying to talk to a ham in Queensland named Jack on 20 meters one evening long ago, and getting a lot of interference. He suggested that I try "long path", up and over and around the world. I turned my antenna 180 degrees, and all the snap-crackle-pop disappeared and it sounded like a groundwave conversation instead of an 8-hop 23,000-odd mile trip. He 'splained how it worked, and gave me the short form of chordal propagation, and I knew I was talking to a genuine old time ham. Wasn't the last time I talked long path to Oz or New Zealand, either.)

Wow! My old army mate used to try 'phoning' his dad using something similar but couldn't bounce it across to WA from Victoria. Going aroudn the world on a 20 metre sounds amazing!

Didja see the movie where the magician uses a Tesla coil to create duplicates of himself to do tricks? Michael Caine and Hugh Jackman in it. Proved positively than you you can use a Tesla coil to do anything. HAARP's very much the same thing, Black Magic.

Yeah, the Prestige. Completely creepy, but in a steampunk sort of way. Come on, ya gotta allow a little room for steampunk Sci-Fi! (I'm trying to write a teen Harry Potter meets Mad Max set in a post-collapse Sydney. While not set in the Victorian era, it's going to have some steampunk elements).

 

[Biblewriter]

Tornado activity hits 60-year low

 

[eclipsenow]

Tornado activity hits 60-year low

Are you ready for a 4 degree world?

At one point during his keynote speech, Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and former climate adviser to the German Chancellor and the EU, asks rhetorically: “What is the difference between two degrees (of temperature increase) and four degrees?”
“The difference,” he said, “is human civilisation”.
Are you ready for a four degree world?
​

 

[Biblewriter]

Are you ready for a 4 degree world?

At one point during his keynote speech, Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and former climate adviser to the German Chancellor and the EU, asks rhetorically: “What is the difference between two degrees (of temperature increase) and four degrees?”
“The difference,” he said, “is human civilisation”.
Are you ready for a four degree world?
​

If he is correct about this, then we absolutely know a four degree temperature rise cannot happen. For an end to civilization wold make the fulfillment of Bible prophecy impossible.

 

[eclipsenow]

If he is correct about this, then we absolutely know a four degree temperature rise cannot happen. For an end to civilization wold make the fulfillment of Bible prophecy impossible.

It would make your particular Dispensationalist reading of 'prophecy' impossible. I personally see all prophecy fulfilled in the gospel of Christ! As Hebrews 1 says (my emphasis added), Jesus is the fulfilment of all prophecy and the final word. There is no more need for prophecy, and nothing left to be fulfilled. The Messiah died for our sins, and rose again, guaranteeing that He will return to Judge this world. That's the gospel. His final return in victorious judgement is not so much 'prophecy' as it is part of the gospel itself. I'm sorry you were raised in a Dispensationalist household, as you've probably had a lifetime of disappointment and confusion as prediction after prediction failed. Hal Lindsey? Harold Camping? They all share your presuppositions as you approach certain passages of the bible. However, I'm happy with the way Hebrews 1 puts it.

Hebrews 1

1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

 

[Biblewriter]

It would make your particular Dispensationalist reading of 'prophecy' impossible. I personally see all prophecy fulfilled in the gospel of Christ! As Hebrews 1 says (my emphasis added), Jesus is the fulfilment of all prophecy and the final word. There is no more need for prophecy, and nothing left to be fulfilled. The Messiah died for our sins, and rose again, guaranteeing that He will return to Judge this world. That's the gospel. His final return in victorious judgement is not so much 'prophecy' as it is part of the gospel itself. I'm sorry you were raised in a Dispensationalist household, as you've probably had a lifetime of disappointment and confusion as prediction after prediction failed. Hal Lindsey? Harold Camping? They all share your presuppositions as you approach certain passages of the bible. However, I'm happy with the way Hebrews 1 puts it.

Hebrews 1

1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

I have had zero disappointment, as no true dispensationalist makes any "prediction" whatsoever. As to understanding prophecy, it is unfolding exactly as the scriptures say, and exactly as dispensationalists have always said it would.