HAB Theory could be the key to getting us to take climate change seriously?

[DennisTate]

So our choices are either
No because we can't affect the climate or it's a conspiracy or
Yes it's a prophecy
Nothing like a little bias in the polling questions.

I have been a Christian since the '70's so I grew up with a rather biased view of the world and our place in it.

Basically...… I had been taught to fear these powerful and influential "others" who seemingly directed world events toward persecution of people like me....... Now I am beginning to think that it is time for the Bride of Messiah to arise........... and take her place................ much as Joshua had to lead twelve tribes of Israel into the Promised Land....... and there was fighting involved........

http://www.christianforums.com/t7848489/

Hidden gold in Pastor Shane Warren visionary dream????

 

[DennisTate]

Yes.

Couldn't you tell?

An impressive joke I must admit though!

I just got back an exceptionally good reply on a similar topic in another forum here.......... I hope what this person writes is correct...… and I do actually hope that my concerns are exaggerated???!

http://www.christianforums.com/t7812658-4/#post67164231

HAB Theory may be key to getting us Conservatives to take climate change seriously.

I just skimmed over the original post, wow, that is pure comedy.

In order for the theory to have any merit the amount of water and thus potential ice on the Earth's surface would have to be significant, like 20% or more of the Earth's mass...

Take a look at this diagram

here is an article that sheds more light on just how much of the Earth is water. Note the difference between "Earth" vs "Earth's Surface".

Less than 0.02% of the Earth is water.

If you took all of the water on the earth and in the Earth and compared it to the entire Earth you'd get something that looked like this

in terms of weight, keep in mind that rock and iron and significantly more dense and heavier than water.

So yeah, thinking that heavy polar caps will make the Earth spin sideways is just lunacy...

 

[AV1611VET]

Didn't some little girl present a story to the Club in Rome in 1980 about algae on the pond on Day 29?

?

This old French children's riddle was told to the founding meeting of the Club of Rome:

Imagine you own a piece of property on which lies a small lake.

Near the shore is a variety of water lily with a most unusual characteristic: it doubles in size every day. You understand that, if the lily is permitted to grow unchecked, it will completely cover your lake in 30 days, blocking out all light and oxygen, thus choking off every other form of life in the water.

But you're busy - and besides, the lily pad seems small in comparison to the size of the lake. And so for weeks you ignore it, deciding to deal with it when it covers close to half your lake.

On what day will that be?

On the twenty-ninth day, of course. By then you will have only one day left in which to save your lake.

Source: Apocalypse Next, by William R. Goetz, Horizon Books, p. 19

 

[AV1611VET]

AV likes to try to post mysterious, seemingly nonsensical things just so people will keep asking him what he means and then he'll finally tell them, instead of just stating what he means upfront. It likely serves a dual purpose of getting people to pay attention to him and padding his post count.

Either that, or I assumed OWG, being 74 years old, likely had heard that story before (I heard it in college, when I was 23).

That would have saved me some typing, brother in Christ.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Either that, or I assumed OWG, being 74 years old, likely had heard that story before (I heard it in college, when I was 23).

That would have saved me some typing, brother in Christ.

I googled "Club of Rome" and the pond riddle came up all over the place. I had never heard it before but it is a good example of human response to problems, on the corporate or government level. The individual has the ability to respond and solve mundane problems quite quickly. The larger the group involved the slower the response time. At the government or large corporate level change slows to a snails pace, or goes into complete gridlock. It's difficult to overcome the inertia of convention and complacency.

 

[AV1611VET]

I googled "Club of Rome" and the pond riddle came up all over the place. I had never heard it before but it is a good example of human response to problems, on the corporate or government level. The individual has the ability to respond and solve mundane problems quite quickly. The larger the group involved the slower the response time. At the government or large corporate level change slows to a snails pace, or goes into complete gridlock. It's difficult to overcome the inertia of convention and complacency.

Well-put!

 

[Strathos]

Either that, or I assumed OWG, being 74 years old, likely had heard that story before (I heard it in college, when I was 23).

That would have saved me some typing, brother in Christ.

I wasn't aware that trying to avoid excess typing was something you were concerned about. Makes me wonder how many posts you'd have otherwise...

 

[RealityCheck01]

Dr. Albert Einstein took The HAB Theory very seriously.
...
Are you personally worried about the threat of rising ocean levels?

The HAB theory is a theory from the crank electrical engineer Hugh Auchincloss Brown. So we can ignore most of this post and the unfounded assertion that Albert Einstein took it seriously. All he did was write a foreword to one of Brown's books.

The answer is personally no: I live more than a couple of meters above sea level.

But being a rational, compassionate person the actual answer is yes since the likely consequence of rising sea levels from global warming is the displacement of millions of people, enormous costs, etc.

 

[DennisTate]

The HAB theory is a theory from the crank electrical engineer Hugh Auchincloss Brown. So we can ignore most of this post and the unfounded assertion that Albert Einstein took it seriously. All he did was write a foreword to one of Brown's books.

The answer is personally no: I live more than a couple of meters above sea level.

But being a rational, compassionate person the actual answer is yes since the likely consequence of rising sea levels from global warming is the displacement of millions of people, enormous costs, etc.

Excellent answer RealityCheck01!

I believe that we Christians can apply the principle of ....Matthew 5:25
Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.


....at the same time that we set the stage for the fulfillment of Isaiah chapter 35.

.... by at least agreeing with the political left that rising ocean levels is a threat that we take seriously!

 

[DennisTate]

I googled "Club of Rome" and the pond riddle came up all over the place. I had never heard it before but it is a good example of human response to problems, on the corporate or government level. The individual has the ability to respond and solve mundane problems quite quickly. The larger the group involved the slower the response time. At the government or large corporate level change slows to a snails pace, or goes into complete gridlock. It's difficult to overcome the inertia of convention and complacency.

What do you personally think of what Carl Cantrell writes on a similar topic?


Tribulation

The Sixth Seal
When the wicked begin killing God's people, He always turns up the heat. That will be true in the Tribulation as well. With this seal, God begins to show His true might as the one and only God. This one judgment will dwarf all of the previous judgments.

There are a number of catastrophes which will occur in this one judgment. The first I wish to discuss is the sudden disappearance of almost all of the stars from the sky.

For a long time, scientists have been debating the end of our cosmos. Will it expand until the cumulative gravity of the cosmos can no longer hold the subatomic particles together and everything flies apart or will it stop expanding and collapse in on itself? By December 1998, it was made public that scientists
had finally confirmed that everything would continue expanding until everything flies apart.

This realization confirms this prophesy. In this prophesy, it states that the stars will be rolled up like a scroll. This means that the stars will disappear from the outside of the cosmos to the inside of the cosmos. When the subatomic particles begin flying apart, the first to fly apart will be those closest to the outside of our cosmos. This will decrease the cumulative gravity of our cosmos and cause matter a little further from the outside to also fly apart. This process will domino from the outside of our cosmos and will accelerate towards the center at an exponential rate. You wont see any flashes or explosions because even the light photons will fly apart before they can reach us. It will simply look like some one is turning out the lights starting from the outside of our cosmos and moving toward the inside. Without the hand of God to control this, what would happen to you is that you would be standing here one instant and fly apart at the subatomic level the next instant. You wouldn't see, feel, or hear anything because your brain wouldn't have time to register what happened. You would suddenly cease to exist and become a cloud of fast moving subatomic particles.
But, it is very apparent that God does stop this at some point because (1) the story continues and (2) a later prophesy refers to stars in the sky. This means that God has and will use the power to control this phenomenon to save us and some of the stars. This alone will literally scare some people to death.

This prophesy also states that there will be a meteor shower but it does not provide details about this shower or the damage it causes.

This prophesy also tells us that the islands and mountains are moved out of their places. This causes some people to confuse this prophesy with the last judgment of the Tribulation which states that all of the islands and mountains will be destroyed. These people think that moving all of the islands and mountains out of their places requires that they all be destroyed and, therefore, these must be the same prophesies.
Actually, there are at least two scientific possibilities where the islands and mountains can be moved out of their places and not be destroyed. The first would be if the planet should change the tilt on its axis. The other, we discovered decades ago, would be if the crust of the Earth were to shift or slide over the molten magma under neath it.
The latter would be much more likely to produce the remainder of the problems described in this prophesy. The rest of this prophesy says that there will be a great earthquake and that the sun will be made black and the moon will be made red. This is clearly indicative of seismic and volcanic activity. If the Earth's crust were to move even slightly over the magma, it would have to change shape. The Earth is not a perfect sphere because the Earth's spinning creates centripetal force which causes the Earth to bulge at the equator. If the crust at the bulge were to move either north or south, it would have to flatten slightly which would cause bunching and create hills and mountains very quickly. If the crust from a flatter part were to move to the bulge, it would be stretched creating crevices and chasms. The end result would be massive seismic and volcanic activity on a global basis. There would be so much volcanic ash in the sky that the sun would be made black and the moon would look red.
It is also important to know that approximately 90% of what comes out of a volcano during an eruption is steam. This steam condenses into clouds which produce very strong thunder, lightning, and hail storms. You always have very strong storms following major volcanic eruptions and this will contribute to the blocking out of the sun and moon.
How severe the seismic and volcanic activity will be, depends on how far the crust moves and how fast. If it moves too fast, everyone would die very quickly. But, if it moves slow enough, it can move very far without killing most of us.
There is another serious problem which would accompany such activity. It would change the oceans and continents positions in relation to the sun. This would permanently alter the global weather. Forests and jungles would become either deserts or polar caps. Sudden flooding in dry deserts causes massive erosion and would create a waste land of huge gullies. Farm land would become useless, we would get a huge population of immigrants fleeing from one disaster area to another, and there could be severe storms raging throughout the planet.
It should be obvious that the effects of such a global catastrophe will be felt for the rest of the Tribulation. As a matter of fact, we have learned that earthquakes don't relieve stress in the crust, they increase stress in the crust. This means that this massive of a crust movement will set a series of geological phenomenon in motion which will culminate with the final earthquake that will be so violent that it will destroy all of the islands and mountains. Until then, the aftershocks will be larger than the largest of today's earthquakes. The Earth will almost constantly shake for the last five years of the Tribulation with constant volcanic activity creating a permanent cloud of ash surrounding the planet. It will be building towards blowing itself apart into a cloud of asteroids. If Jesus would delay His coming even the slightest at the end of the Tribulation, it would do just that. There wouldn't be a planet for Lucifer to take over. He would rule a dead pile of rocks floating in space. Lucifer is in a lose/lose situation. He can't win. You don't want to go into the Tribulation.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What do you personally think of what Carl Cantrell writes on a similar topic?

I guess I'm not making that connection.

 

[DennisTate]

I guess I'm not making that connection.

Here is the most important couple of paragraphs.

Tribulation

This prophesy also tells us that the islands and mountains are moved out of their places. This causes some people to confuse this prophesy with the last judgment of the Tribulation which states that all of the islands and mountains will be destroyed. These people think that moving all of the islands and mountains out of their places requires that they all be destroyed and, therefore, these must be the same prophesies.

Actually, there are at least two scientific possibilities where the islands and mountains can be moved out of their places and not be destroyed. The first would be if the planet should change the tilt on its axis. The other, we discovered decades ago, would be if the crust of the Earth were to shift or slide over the molten magma under neath it." (Carl Cantrell)

BLB - Rev 6: Revelation of Jesus Christ 6 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)
Revelation 6:14
"And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Here is the most important couple of paragraphs.

Tribulation


BLB - Rev 6: Revelation of Jesus Christ 6 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)
Revelation 6:14
"And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places."

I guess I'm not making a direct connection between sea level rise and other end time prophecies.

 

[RealityCheck01]

....http://www.christianforums.com/t7812658-4/#post67164231

HAB Theory may be key to getting us Conservatives to take climate change seriously.

Sorry, DennisTate, but anyone taking HAB theory seriously is the key to that person being ignorant about science!
HAB theory is a crank idea in a couple of outdated books.

 

[DennisTate]

Sorry, DennisTate, but anyone taking HAB theory seriously is the key to that person being ignorant about science!
HAB theory is a crank idea in a couple of outdated books.

But…. is the amount of ice in the central portion of Antarctica growing or not?

Is Antarctic ice growing by a little bit….. or by a lot?

Is growth in Antarctic ice the primary reason why the melting on GReenland and the world's glaciers has not yet led to significant rise in ocean levels?

 

[DennisTate]

This old French children's riddle was told to the founding meeting of the Club of Rome:


Source: Apocalypse Next, by William R. Goetz, Horizon Books, p. 19

What do you think of the statistics given in this article from Canada's Christian Heritage Party?

from Vicki Gunn - Executive Director of the Christian Heritage Party
CHP Communiqué Vol 22, Issue 48, Dec 01, 2015
Global Cooling? Global Warming? Whatever…
Just Call it Climate Change
Was anyone else besides me terrified at school in the 1970s by the spectre of another ice age? Scientists said we were facing another ice age. Thankfully, that didn’t happen. My fears—of not waking up one morning because of another ice age—were unfounded.
Fast forward 20 years and the world was in a panicked battle against “global warming.” “Global warming,” we were told “is a global issue; therefore all countries need to come together under the UN, give up their national sovereignty and submit to the enlightened policies of ‘The New World Order.’”
Surprisingly though, the climate has failed to cooperate; according to some scientists, we’ve just gone through 20 years of global cooling. A study produced by NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), tells a different story of the “diminishing” Antarctic ice cap: “According to new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008…” Wow! Which “scientists” are we supposed to believe? When 20 years of global cooling could no longer be ignored, the name of the imminent threat to the planet was changed to reflect the new reality…now it’s “climate change” we’re battling.
Yet starting yesterday, Nov 30, 2015, our new Prime Minister and our provincial Premiers gathered with 150 other world leaders at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference (also known as COP 21—Conference of Parties, 21st annual meeting) to deal with “climate change,” still loosely understood to refer to the threat of worldwide global warming. It doesn’t matter if it’s warming or cooling, all countries must jump on the bandwagon because “climate change” is causing extreme weather, or so we’re told.
Each time a COP meeting has been held, from the Kyoto years forward, the world has been chastened and warned about “anthropomorphic climate change” (man-caused climate change). Very specifically, we have been told that our use of carbon fuels (coal, oil, gas) and the CO2 byproduct of combustion is disastrously warming the globe. This has never been proven; in fact thousands of scientists disagree with the theory. Nevertheless, like the Emperor’s politically-correct subjects who pretended to admire his glorious but non-existent ”new clothes,” international “climate extremists” have brought pressure to bear on countries to force them to submit to global government based on the unproven theory of CO2-based global warming.
Last Sunday night, our Prime Minister began putting pressure on the Prime Minister of India. This after announcing Canada will give $2.65 billion dollars to help developing countries fight climate change. It’s a good thing he has a bottomless purse…but then again, he did promise to run deficits.
So the big push is on for money to “save the planet from climate change.” Carbon taxes are already being imposed in various jurisdictions with more on the way. They have two purposes: to provide a negative incentive to burning fuel and to squeeze additional cash out of consumers—this money theoretically to be used for research or to pay for retrofitting industries with carbon-reduction technologies. Then there are carbon credits, something you can buy which don’t actually exist. These are a type of penance you can choose willingly or have imposed upon you as a penalty for not meeting your carbon objectives. Besides being abused and becoming another very burstable credit bubble, these credits actually do nothing at all to reduce carbon.
The “climate change” agenda is like the “Emperor’s New Clothes” Remember that story? The bottom line is that we are sold nothing…and it costs a lot of money to get that nothing. Another misconception is that businesses, not consumers will pay their carbon taxes. Wrong!!! Businesses pass their expenses on to the consumer so guess who is really paying these new taxes?
Then there’s the unrealistic expectation that we can immediately replace all our energy needs with wind and solar. Nice idea. Not practical in 2015. Ontario has jumped into this with both feet, imposing wind turbines where they’re not wanted and massively subsidizing wind- and solar-generated electricity (using taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ money). Meanwhile they’re selling cheaper, reliable “excess” water-generated electricity to Quebec and the US at a loss. Does this make sense? Of course not but it creates a self-defined legacy of “change.” Politicians can pat themselves on the back and say they did something to save the planet.
The CHP has long endorsed—and continues to endorse—solid research into alternative energy sources. Wind, solar, wave and tidal, biofuels, thorium…all these have potential but the technology must be proven before committing taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars. In other words, the research and the science should point the way, not politics! Too much research in recent years has started with an assumption and set out to prove it rather than following the evidence where it leads.
The Christian Heritage Party believes in true science—the study of the created universe. We believe God wants us to look after this planet for our children. We just don’t blindly accept the conclusions of those who want to force upon us their narrow agenda of world government and population control. The “tax-and-spend” policies of the politically-correct will neither save the planet nor help mankind.
The Christian Heritage Party supports responsible stewardship of resources, reasonable and effective recycling and reduced emissions of man-made toxic chemicals. Carbon and carbon dioxide are naturally-occurring and essential for all plant and animal life. The CO2 hysteria must stop. Let’s figure out how to protect innocent human life, along with natural spaces, biodiversity and all that is noble in a free society.
It’s time for us all to put our best foot forward; if you’re not already a member, now’s the time to join CHP Canada! We’re going to make full use of the next four years to ensure that Canada knows there is an alternative to “the same old, same old.” Tomorrow can dawn brightly for this nation but only if we do our part today to make it happen.

 

[RealityCheck01]

What do you think of the statistics given in this article from Canada's Christian Heritage Party?

I would say it looks like several irreverent to this thread climate change myths.
Starts with the "scientists predicted an ice age" myth when: The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.

The myth (almost a lie) of "20 years of global cooling". The heat content of the Earth as a whole has been increasing since the 1960's. There was a short term (in the context of climate) lessening of the warming trend of surface temperatures. There exists a lie by cherry picking a satellite dataset and start date about X years of cooling but even that only gives 17 or 18 years of "cooling". And if we were to cherry pick then there are the recent hottest years on record that seem to keep on going !
Global cooling - Is global warming still happening?

Misleading "“diminishing” Antarctic ice cap" followed by stats about the Antarctic ice sheet. Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?

While the interior of East Antarctica is gaining land ice, overall Antarctica has been losing land ice at an accelerating rate. Antarctic sea ice is growing despite a strongly warming Southern Ocean.

 

[RickG]

But…. is the amount of ice in the central portion of Antarctica growing or not?

Ice mass (volume) on Antarctica is probably one of the most misunderstood things pertaining to global climatology to date which yields itself to misuse and misrepresentations with respect to sea level rise.

Is Antarctic ice growing by a little bit….. or by a lot?

The actual scientific research shows that it is gaining ice overall by only a slight amount. What one has to understand is that Antarctica is a unique continent. Besides being over the south pole it average elevation is also 8200 ft. Conversely, the north pole has no land and the ice there is at sea level. A huge difference in geography and topography. There are parts of Antarctica is gaining ice and parts are losing ice, but as just mentioned, the over all mass is a slight gain. Global warming does not mean that it will stop snowing and all the ice will melt.

Is growth in Antarctic ice the primary reason why the melting on GReenland and the world's glaciers has not yet led to significant rise in ocean levels?

Absolutely not. Most of the current sea level rise is due to thermal expansion of the oceans, not ice melt.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Absolutely not. Most of the current sea level rise is due to thermal expansion of the oceans, not ice melt.

True, and worse yet ocean warming is preventing much of the terrestrial effects of global warming (so far) by acting as a gigantic heat sink. But the day of reckoning will come.

 

[RickG]

True, and worse yet ocean warming is preventing much of the terrestrial effects of global warming (so far) by acting as a gigantic heat sink. But the day of reckoning will come.

I had to read your post twice, but yes, I agree. Most of the heat (and CO2) is being absorbed by the oceans.