- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Good point. The promise God made that the world will never be underwater again.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Good point. The promise God made that the world will never be underwater again.The reason why I don't believe in global warming as a doomday waterworld, is because of the rainbow!
Well, yes. It is also important to change the power grid to renewable energy sources. Nuclear would also be an improvement.
Hmm. I think the problem is cities. People need to get into and out of them from far away. If for example they worked and could buy food etc. in their village, or town, maybe billions of commutes would not be needed? But this sinful world can't get fixed. It needs replacement.Yes, better public transportation would also help significantly.
Noah was so glad about the rainbow kids...why? Because some partial flooding would not happen again? No. You see kids partial flooding did and does happen all the time. All the animals had to be in the ark because a partial flood occurred? Strange. If say half the world or more wasn't flooded, why not just have them move for awhile??Not that that verse doesn't rule out partial flooding of course.
Noah was so glad about the rainbow kids...why? Because some partial flooding would not happen again? No. You see kids partial flooding did and does happen all the time.
So, you don't think the whole world will flood because water has an index of refraction that varies with frequency? Wow. That's pretty screwy.The reason why I don't believe in global warming as a doomday waterworld, is because of the rainbow!
The area with summer melt on Greenland increased from ~450,000 km2 when satellite
observations began in 1979 to more than 600,000 km2 in 2002 (Steffen et al 2004). Linear fit to data for
1992-2005 yields an increase of melt area of +40,000 km2 per year
Nobody does. This is why actual physical models are used.The basic idea of using a graph to predict future melting is silly beyond the next few years.
I think you're off there. But at any rate the increase in temperature at the North Pole is far and away beyond the increase in temperature at more southern latitudes, largely because of the feedback effect of the lower sea ice cover:As the temperature warms up the snow line moves up in altitude. Because it has got a little warmer the ice front will move up a little. The change is 100m per degree.
You're thinking of snow, not ice. Snow is white. Ice is not. Ice can be pretty dark, depending upon the conditions. If you've ever seen a lake or stream that has iced over, for instance, once you wipe off the surface snow, the ice below is quite dark.The link you quoted is the first which has suggested that ice can become other than white and I have not seen any photos of this happening. Arctic storms will throw ice all over the place and scour the surface into a crazed reflective whiteness fairly often I would think.
And you're clearly not taking into account the fact that glaciers move.Google earth is a good tool for looking at how much ice is in danger of melting. When you add it up and double you get a very low figure.
And when you increase the rate of melt, you increase this area.The idea of water lubricating the glaciers is strange. There is allways a river under the glacier. If more than normal amounts of water flow it will enlarge it's river "tunnel a bit but the pressure of the glacier will allways mean that this is a very resticted area compaired to the area of contact between the ice and the rock.
So, you don't think the whole world will flood because water has an index of refraction that varies with frequency? Wow. That's pretty screwy.
But at any rate, nobody seriously believes the entire world will flood anyway. The most that can reasonably happen is a sea level rise of ~80-100 meters or so. And that would take many centuries to occur, and would require truly massive warming.
The rise in sea level is just the side show. Arctic warming will disrupt the atmospheric equatorial to polar flow. The jetstream has already retreated northward by 1 degree. With the equatorial polar flow stopped the monsoons will cease meaning droughts over southeast Asia, and in Africa. That means crop failures, starvation, and monkey fights.What we are worried about instead is sea level rise over the next few decades (~30-50 years) that is enough to cause serious problems for many coastal cities, such as dramatically increased chance of flooding during storms.
That's pretty unlikely. Our most pessimistic models at present show sea level rise by 2100 of at most 3-5 meters. I haven't met anybody that believes that Antarctica can melt within a hundred years. I doubt even Greenland could.Actually that could happen in as little as a century.
Guess evos can breathe that sigh of relief?The next time God will destroy the world it will be through fire!
No idea what you are talking about. A rainbow verse rules out a worldwide flood?? Explain?That was my point. The verse rules out total annihilation by flooding - doesn't rule out partial flooding of the planet due to climate change.
So, you don't think the whole world will flood because water has an index of refraction that varies with frequency? Wow. That's pretty screwy.
But at any rate, nobody seriously believes the entire world will flood anyway. The most that can reasonably happen is a sea level rise of ~80-100 meters or so. And that would take many centuries to occur, and would require truly massive warming.
What we are worried about instead is sea level rise over the next few decades (~30-50 years) that is enough to cause serious problems for many coastal cities, such as dramatically increased chance of flooding during storms.
Ha. So called science really are intellectual terrorists.Actually that could happen in as little as a century.
And there is mass starvation in the developing world...has been for some time.Always some fear mongering going on with science. I seem to recall hearing that kids were told in the 60ies that population increase would mean mass starvation.
Man and civil wars and etc are usually the culprit. I don't agree with this site's conspiracy propaganda, but it does bring out how man is involved in famine...And there is mass starvation in the developing world...has been for some time.
But by the way, hearing something on the news that was wrong is hardly an indictment of science. It's an indictment of the news. Which gets the science so incredibly wrong so often it isn't even funny.
No, they're really not. The popular media gets the science so incredibly wrong with such incredible regularity that you're much better off not listening to science reports in the media at all, even without an alternative source of information.The ever changing complicated elite papers of science are not the place most look for info. Teachers in school speak for science, documentaries, books, and etc. (so they need to be held accountable) Reliable news sources are a great place to simplify the long toothed coded, boring papers of the puritan science crowd.
Um, what? That doesn't even make sense. In what way, shape, or form does thanking your god have anything whatsoever to do with the fact that we humans are managing to change our own habitat in ways that are going to be extremely painful for us moving forward?By the way, the only attitude man should have concerning global warming is this....to thank Him sincerely for the water and trees, and sky, and stars and moon, and sun and etc that we do have, cause it won't be here one day.
No. Actually the major reliable news sources are fine generally.No, they're really not. The popular media gets the science so incredibly wrong with such incredible regularity that you're much better off not listening to science reports in the media at all, even without an alternative source of information.
Opinions from the same sort of limited perspective are not all that impressive.The best place to obtain good popular science accounts is in the blogs of scientists and the relatively small number of good science journalists. Blogs are so good precisely because they form a conversation: you not only get the blog post of one person describing the science, but you also get comment below that post (many of which are very informative, though obviously many are the exact opposite), as well as subsequent blog posts discussing the issue, often by bloggers with different ideas. By paying attention to the conversation, you can be exposed to the full range of ideas and come to a reasonable conclusion for yourself.
Um, what? That doesn't even make sense. In what way, shape, or form does thanking your god have anything whatsoever to do with the fact that we humans are managing to change our own habitat in ways that are going to be extremely painful for us moving forward?
You keep saying that as if it means something.No. Actually the major reliable news sources are fine generally.
So, your line of argument is, "I doesn't matter how big a mess I make of things! God will come and clean it up for me!"Everything! No matter what you possibly do, it will not even be dust in the balances compared to what God is setting up to do here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?