Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What if climate change is real and human caused--what should Christians do about it?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • This is 57 years old (click here for full article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...n-made-desert/), but it is a good representation of what we ought to be doing. And notice the timeframe they did it in--10 years. Much can be accomplished in a short amount of time.

    Notice also that it included the time investment of individual citizens.


    Last year, as a finale to the celebration of the 10th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel, an international convention brought 485 farmers from 37 countries to see what had been accomplished. They found a nation of two million people, whose numbers had doubled in the decade, principally by immigration. Yet Israel was already an exporter of agricultural produce and had nearly achieved the goal of agricultural self-sufficiency, with an export/import balance in foodstuffs. It had more than doubled its cultivated land, to a million acres. It had drained 44,000 acres of marshland and extended irrigation to 325,000 acres; it had increased many-fold the supply of underground water from wells and was far along on the work of diverting and utilizing the scant surface waters. On vast stretches of uncultivable land it had established new range-cover to support a growing livestock industry and planted 37 million trees in new forests and shelter belts. All this had been accomplished under a national plan that enlisted the devotion of the citizens and the best understanding and technique provided by modern agricultural science. Israel is not simply restoring the past but seeking full utilization of the land, including realization of potentialities that were unknown to the ancients.



    These are some kinds of things to deal with the effects of climate change in a region, and making more plants grow will help deal with the CO2 in the atmosphere.

    These are positive effects man can have in a region, instead of just taking from the land.

    Agriculture needs to reuse the land over and over again, so it can't just take without giving back.

    Comment


    • One of the most-watched science videos of 2017.

      This animation, the "Temperature Circle," shows every nation on the planet is now in the red:

      https://www.facebook.com/ScientificA...9672387145246/

      Comment


      • Just for fun, I looked up the positives and negatives of global warming. Here are some examples (my comments in parentheses after some, and my coloring for comparison or emphasis):


        DISADVANTAGES OF GLOBAL WARMING (from https://www.thoughtco.com/advantages...arming-1434937)
        • Ocean circulation disrupted, disrupting and having unknown effects on world climate. (This could just as easily be a positive, since its effect is admittedly "unknown".)
        • Higher sea level leading to flooding of low-lying lands and deaths and disease from flood and evacuation.
        • Deserts get drier leading to increased desertification.
        • Changes to agricultural production that can lead to food shortages.
        • Water shortages in already water-scarce areas.
        • Starvation, malnutrition, and increased deaths due to food and crop shortages. (This is the same thing as the red one above.)
        • More extreme weather and an increased frequency of severe and catastrophic storms.
        • Increased disease in humans and animals. (Why? because it's warmer?)
        • Increased deaths from heat waves. (Offset by decrease in winter deaths, I suppose.)
        • Extinction of additional species of animals and plants.
        • Loss of animal and plant habitats.
        • Increased emigration of those from poorer or low-lying countries to wealthier or higher countries seeking better (or non-deadly) conditions. (This is a temporary inconvenience, although many will no doubt want to make their new homeland like the old one.)
        • Additional use of energy resources for cooling needs.
        • Increased air pollution. (Why? Do we get more air pollution because it's warm? Or maybe because there is more human activity during warmer times??)
        • Increased allergy and asthma rates due to earlier blooming of plants. (Somebody is trying too hard!)
        • The melt of permafrost leads to the destruction of structures, landslides, and avalanches. (This is a temporary thing, it seems.)
        • Permanent loss of glaciers and ice sheets. (Is this a bad thing in itself?)
        • Cultural or heritage sites destroyed faster due to increased extremes. (Is this all that bad?)
        • Increased acidity of rainfall. (I think this is due to the cause of the warming, rather than the warming itself.)
        • Earlier drying of forests leading to increased forest fires in size and intensity.
        • Increased cost of insurance as insurers pay out more claims resulting from increasingly large disasters. (I think we're starting to see why insurance is not that great a thing, especially when everything--health, life, identity, property, driving, and now auto-repair if you've heard some of the commercials--has to be insured.)
        • Aggressiveness will increase, leading to an increase in the murder rate. (Why? because people are more uncomfortable?)


        ADVANTAGES OF GLOBAL WARMING
        • Arctic, Antarctic, Siberia, and other frozen regions of the earth may experience more plant growth and milder climates. (This positive effect seems to offset the red colored negative effects above.)
        • The next ice age may be prevented from occurring. (I'm not sure everybody thinks this is a god thing, since we seem to be fretting so much on the loss of ice. In my mind, it's a good thing.)
        • Northwest Passage through Canada's formerly-icy north opens up to sea transportation.
        • Less need for energy consumption to warm cold places.
        • Fewer deaths or injuries due to cold weather.
        • Longer growing seasons could mean increased agricultural production in some local areas. (This also seems to contradict the red negatives above.)
        • Mountains increase in height due to melting glaciers, becoming higher as they rebound against the missing weight of the ice. (I don't know why this is positive. More beautiful scenery, perhaps?)
        • Boundary disputes between countries over low-lying islands will disappear. (LOL)




        Here's another one:

        The Benefits of Climate Change
        October 25, 2013

        Climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century. This is not a right-wing fantasy; it is the consensus of expert opinion. Yet almost nobody seems to know this, says British scientist and journalist Matt Ridley.

        The chief benefits of global warming include: fewer winter deaths; lower energy costs; better agricultural yields; probably fewer droughts; maybe richer biodiversity.
        It is a little-known fact that winter deaths exceed summer deaths.
        There are many likely effects of climate change: positive and negative, economic and ecological, humanitarian and financial. And if you aggregate them all, the overall effect is positive today -- and likely to stay positive until around 2080. That was the conclusion of Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University after he reviewed 14 different studies of the effects of future climate trends.

        Overall, Tol finds that climate change in the past century improved human welfare.
        He calculates the improvement has been 1.4 percent of global economic output, rising to 1.5 percent by 2025.
        For some people, this means the difference between survival and starvation.
        The greatest benefit from climate change comes not from temperature change but from carbon dioxide itself. It is not pollution, but the raw material from which plants make carbohydrates and thereafter proteins and fats. As it is an extremely rare trace gas in the air -- less than 0.04 per cent of the air on average -- plants struggle to absorb enough of it.

        Even polar bears are thriving so far. It's worth noting that the three years with the lowest polar bear cub survival in the western Hudson Bay (1974, 1984 and 1992) were the years when the sea ice was too thick for ringed seals to appear in good numbers in spring. Bears need broken ice.

        Building wind turbines, growing biofuels and substituting wood for coal in power stations -- all policies designed explicitly to fight climate change -- have had negligible effects on carbon dioxide emissions. But they have driven people into fuel poverty, made industries uncompetitive, driven up food prices, accelerated the destruction of forests, killed rare birds of prey, and divided communities.

        So we are doing real harm now to impede a change that will produce net benefits for 70 years.

        Source: Matt Ridley, "Why Climate Change Is Good for the World," The Spectator (U.K.), October 19, 2013



        My own research is much more limited, no doubt, but I've noticed the same thing. Science papers on the effects of global warming, more CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans, and glaciation reduction often show positive effects, but the scientists are quick to say that there are probably more negative effects than positive.

        Comment


        • The greatest benefit from climate change comes not from temperature change but from carbon dioxide itself. It is not pollution, but the raw material from which plants make carbohydrates and thereafter proteins and fats. As it is an extremely rare trace gas in the air -- less than 0.04 per cent of the air on average -- plants struggle to absorb enough of it.
          Carbon dioxide is never the limiting factor in growth of outdoor plants. Yes, never. Usually, it's nitrogen, or one of the essential minerals. Higher carbon dioxide has been noted to do something with crops, however:

          Impacts of elevated atmospheric CO2 on nutrient content of important food crops

          Abstract
          One of the many ways that climate change may affect human health is by altering the nutrient content of food crops. However, previous attempts to study the effects of increased atmospheric CO2 on crop nutrition have been limited by small sample sizes and/or artificial growing conditions. Here we present data from a meta-analysis of the nutritional contents of the edible portions of 41 cultivars of six major crop species grown using free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) technology to expose crops to ambient and elevated CO2 concentrations in otherwise normal field cultivation conditions. This data, collected across three continents, represents over ten times more data on the nutrient content of crops grown in FACE experiments than was previously available. We expect it to be deeply useful to future studies, such as efforts to understand the impacts of elevated atmospheric CO2 on crop macro- and micronutrient concentrations, or attempts to alleviate harmful effects of these changes for the billions of people who depend on these crops for essential nutrients.


          From the study:
          Climate change may have numerous effects on human health, not least via effects on agriculture and nutrition. Because plant productivity is fundamentally tied to atmospheric CO2 by photosynthesis, changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration ([CO2]) may have cascading effects on numerous aspects of plant biochemistry. If these cascading effects include changes in the nutrient content of staple crops, this could have substantial implications for public health in regions where people rely on those crops for critical nutrients. Indeed, nutrient deficiencies are already a major global public health problem
          https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201536

          Comment


          • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
            Carbon dioxide is never the limiting factor in growth of outdoor plants. Yes, never. Usually, it's nitrogen, or one of the essential minerals. Higher carbon dioxide has been noted to do something with crops, however:

            Impacts of elevated atmospheric CO2 on nutrient content of important food crops

            Abstract
            One of the many ways that climate change may affect human health is by altering the nutrient content of food crops. However, previous attempts to study the effects of increased atmospheric CO2 on crop nutrition have been limited by small sample sizes and/or artificial growing conditions. Here we present data from a meta-analysis of the nutritional contents of the edible portions of 41 cultivars of six major crop species grown using free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) technology to expose crops to ambient and elevated CO2 concentrations in otherwise normal field cultivation conditions. This data, collected across three continents, represents over ten times more data on the nutrient content of crops grown in FACE experiments than was previously available. We expect it to be deeply useful to future studies, such as efforts to understand the impacts of elevated atmospheric CO2 on crop macro- and micronutrient concentrations, or attempts to alleviate harmful effects of these changes for the billions of people who depend on these crops for essential nutrients.


            From the study:
            Climate change may have numerous effects on human health, not least via effects on agriculture and nutrition. Because plant productivity is fundamentally tied to atmospheric CO2 by photosynthesis, changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration ([CO2]) may have cascading effects on numerous aspects of plant biochemistry. If these cascading effects include changes in the nutrient content of staple crops, this could have substantial implications for public health in regions where people rely on those crops for critical nutrients. Indeed, nutrient deficiencies are already a major global public health problem
            https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201536
            Thanks, I'll look that over. Would you mind, when quoting a post of mine, to include the post # as supplied when you select "Reply with quote"? That way I can see it in my quotes list.

            Thanks!
            Derf

            Comment


            • Yeah, sorry. Bad habit, that.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ffreeloader View Post
                Forty to fifty hours of research and reading the documentation on the site.

                Do you always take someone else's word for things that you don't look at yourself? That's what you have done here. You've ignored my link to the site, disbelieved me, and then accepted the word of another person that nothing exists. Seems to me it's a pretty arbitrary way of looking into something.
                23 minutes - fact filled

                Comment




                • What if climate change is real and human caused--what should Christians do about it?

                  This President has slashed the research budgets, deliberately forcing every "self-respecting" climate scientist, who disagrees with him, to resign from the Environmental Protection Agency - based on the Conservative Theory that what we don't know can't hurt us!

                  Apparently this year's destructive hurricanes in Texas, south Florida, Puerto Rio and the wildfires in the West weren't serious enough to provide for any second thoughts - "The Donald's" response, in his infinite wisdom, was to resurrect the Coal Industry!
                  Last edited by jgarden; December 26th, 2017, 12:52 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by jgarden View Post


                    What if climate change is real and human caused--what should Christians do about it?

                    This President has slashed the research budgets, deliberately forcing every "self-respecting" climate scientist, who disagrees with him out, to resign from the Environmental Protection Agency - based on the Conservative Theory that what we don't know can't hurt us!

                    Apparently this year's destructive hurricanes in Texas, south Florida, Puerto Rio and the wildfires in the West weren't serious enough to provide for any second thoughts - "The Donald's" response, in his infinite wisdom, was to resurrect the Coal Industry!
                    So, what would be a Christian response? Obviously you think The Donald's response was not the right one. Tell us what God would have us do, and why you think so.

                    Thanks,
                    Derf

                    Comment


                    • Everybody now knows that the biggest threat to life on earth is being drilled by a meteor. Until we address this possibility, which scientists say is bound to happen some time, I have zero energy for addressing climate change. Once we have an answer to the meteor threat, which is real, scientists say, then let's concern ourselves with climate change.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Nihilo View Post
                        Everybody now knows that the biggest threat to life on earth is being drilled by a meteor. Until we address this possibility, which scientists say is bound to happen some time, I have zero energy for addressing climate change. Once we have an answer to the meteor threat, which is real, scientists say, then let's concern ourselves with climate change.
                        Again, that is our biggest threat in man's eyes. Is it for a Christian? We have specific "threats" in the bible about fire destroying the earth. Is that caused by a meteor or by something else? I don't know.

                        I guess you're saying that we should only tackle the biggest, most immediate threat. I wonder if that's wise. In either case, how do we decide what's best to do about any of these things--from a Christian perspective? This is a dangerous question, because it opens us and our Lord up to ridicule, if we have no answer.

                        Do we?

                        Comment


                        • Comment


                          • Originally posted by Derf View Post
                            Again, that is our biggest threat in man's eyes. Is it for a Christian?
                            Christians look forward to life everlasting regardless, so why would there be a difference between what "man" perceives and what Christians perceive, in this particular regard? Unless what you're asking is really something along the lines of the subject of the What is the Gospel? thread. For Christians, for many anyway, things eternal trump things temporary, so the fate of the planet doesn't really compare, but since there are so many people talking about it that it's become a political matter that has forced itself into our lives, uninvited, we have to consider this guest who just barged into our lives. And sat down. And started eating our food.
                            Originally posted by Derf View Post
                            We have specific "threats" in the bible about fire destroying the earth. Is that caused by a meteor or by something else? I don't know.
                            And nobody does, and should we be trying to defend ourselves against God raining down fire upon us? 'Seems sacrilegious at first blush, but the answer again for the Christian is not physical defense or catastrophe planning but preaching the Gospel, in word and in deed, I think.
                            Originally posted by Derf View Post
                            I guess you're saying that we should only tackle the biggest, most immediate threat.
                            First. It makes no sense to me to ignore the biggest most immediate threat, and focus on something smaller. That seems like a silly waste of time, and a distraction, and a stupendous one given the opportunity cost of not working on a response to meteor strike. All the brilliant people working on climate change could give an ounce of thought to meteor impact scenarios, and start every paper or lecture with something about where we are in regard to this devastation, before proceeding to climate change and what to do about that. Sooner or later, people would stop thinking about climate change because meteor impact would immediately and irreparably alter climate, just as a footnote, to all the much more serious destruction that it would cause.

                            Getting others to agree that climate change even if all the worst case scenarios come true, still isn't bigger than meteor impact, has been a very tough row to hoe.
                            Originally posted by Derf View Post
                            I wonder if that's wise.
                            I don't. I know that given the real, acknowledged, and certain threat of bolide impact to this planet, that all this effort on climate change is worse than arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. There was no time and no resources to do anything about the Titanic sinking, but we have time right now to prepare for the eventual and certain looming meteor or comet that's heading our way as we speak.
                            Originally posted by Derf View Post
                            In either case, how do we decide what's best to do about any of these things--from a Christian perspective?
                            Politics is "the art of the possible," and that is where these things will happen, and are happening. The loudest Christian voices on the matter are saying "stewardship," and I have no reason to deny that as a guiding light going forward. I just wonder what it means to be good stewards, when we know that some part of this earth will be pulverized by a giant space rock traveling maybe ten times as fast as a rifle round, at some point in the future. With luck, we'll see it coming many years in advance, hopefully decades or even 100+ years from when it inevitably occurs, but there's no guarantee it doesn't happen tonight either. And I cannot wrap my head around this eventuality, and climate change, as even being mentioned together in the same conversation because of the orders of magnitude difference between them, on every scale and in every metric. Fiercer weather and lost coastlines, compared with 5-33% of life wiped out, plus a "nuclear winter" that will last years after the fact? And that all presumes that it's not 100% of life, and that earth maintains its stable orbit around the sun. We might get nudged off course and start a death spiral into the sun, or out and away, from the only source of heat that we have. I can't help but interject sarcasm like, "So yeah, let's talk about rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere. "
                            Originally posted by Derf View Post
                            This is a dangerous question, because it opens us and our Lord up to ridicule, if we have no answer.
                            I don't see that threat. The world already ridicules us. In that regard, the meteor impact has already happened.

                            Comment


                            • my prediction fighting the climate
                              will cost billions, will create mini dictators , will lose freedoms , will be no difference in climate.

                              question, how will they gauge a successful fight against the climate?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by way 2 go View Post
                                question, how will they gauge a successful fight against the climate?
                                Already underway:

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X