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

  • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
    The thing is... it's NOT junk.... it's ALSO an excellent building material.

    Did you ever think that the ocean might start to fill up with this "junk" or that there might be other side effects of dumping things in the ocean?

    Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
    No, you lighten up... see how that works?


    So like I said just dump the stuff into the sea since it's useless garbage, trash, and junk, even though . . . it will fill up the ocean.

    Comment


    • Now that we're all lightened up...

      When do we start throwing things in the ocean?
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Nihilo View Post
        OK. Thank you for the response.

        So I'll take a break from Mt. Everest Jr. for a bit and explore an idea to address 'climate change.'

        The trouble is caused by carbon in the atmosphere, which is nominally less than a percent of the air we breathe. The increasing carbon (carbon dioxide mainly) doesn't affect our direct health, i.e. our breathing, but does affect how heat is managed by the atmosphere.

        So in order to address 'climate change' we need to address carbon. And the word is 'sequester,' which means to capture the carbon, to remove it from the atmosphere. We need to sequester carbon.

        And my thought doesn't go to technology for this but to plants, because plants already sequester carbon from the atmosphere. The reason that plants are what they are is because they sequester carbon from the atmosphere, that carbon is what plants use as 'bricks' to build themselves, along with water. They construct carbohydrates and proteins and fats, each of which is made of carbon, converting that carbon from atmospheric to plant matter.

        And a quick check indicates that something like bamboo is the plant that sequesters the most carbon from the atmosphere per unit time of all the plants on the earth.

        So the idea is, grow bamboo with intention, harvest it, and then dump it in the sea. How many acres of bamboo forest does this planet need to sequester carbon at a fast enough rate to not only offset new carbon emissions, but also cut into the already elevated levels of carbon in the air now?

        Thanks again.
        Bamboo isn't the best way. Apparently, the least expensive way is to scatter huge amounts of soluble iron over wide stretches of ocean. The limiting factor for phytoplankton growth is iron, and experiments have shown that scattering iron across large areas of ocean will cause a large increase in phytoplankton. It's quick, too. And since the oceans are the largest well of photosynthesis in our world, it seems like a good approach.

        Wouldn't hurt to find ways to slow down the amount of carbon we're dumping into the air, of course.

        The other problem with rising CO2 is the fact that it reduces the nutritional value of crops. While breeding for carbon dioxide tolerance is a long-term solution, in the short term, we have a major problem.
        This message is hidden because ...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
          This is what happens when you reject Genesis as literal.

          “While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, Cold and heat, Winter and summer, And day and night Shall not cease.” - Genesis 8:22 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...2&version=NKJV

          Those are God's words.

          You should accept them as something He actually said.
          Unfortunately, all those things continuing, will not stop the effects of warming. You should accept that we are stewards of this world, and we do affect what happens on it. without major changes, seas will rise,and climate will cause dislocations in farming and livability of many areas, with profound effects on culture, war, and human migration.

          That's what always happens when climate changes drastically.

          Even if seasons and days continue. Seed time and harvest will continue, but will not be the same times as in the past, or even in the same places.
          This message is hidden because ...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            Now that we're all lightened up...

            When do we start throwing things in the ocean?
            Like with the best time to plant a tree, the best time to dump things into the sea is 20 years ago.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
              Bamboo isn't the best way. Apparently, the least expensive way is to scatter huge amounts of soluble iron over wide stretches of ocean. The limiting factor for phytoplankton growth is iron, and experiments have shown that scattering iron across large areas of ocean will cause a large increase in phytoplankton. It's quick, too. And since the oceans are the largest well of photosynthesis in our world, it seems like a good approach.
              OK. The thought with bamboo and dumping it into the sea was to keep it fixed as a solid, and not permit it back into the atmosphere. What happens to phytoplankton once it grows and dies? Does the carbon ultimately return to the atmosphere or does it too stay put? As I mentioned, just harvesting bamboo and burning it defeats the purpose since that would just release again all the sequestered carbon, and I figure that if it instead gets waterlogged and sinks to the bottom of the ocean that it would stay in the sea.
              Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
              Wouldn't hurt to find ways to slow down the amount of carbon we're dumping into the air, of course.
              So long as it can be done peacefully, justly, and without imprisoning, fining, or otherwise penalizing people with police or government to do so, that's OK with me. But if those things can't be avoided, then I'd just assume keeping pouring carbon into the air and let the chips fall where they may.
              Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
              The other problem with rising CO2 is the fact that it reduces the nutritional value of crops. While breeding for carbon dioxide tolerance is a long-term solution, in the short term, we have a major problem.
              How? I'm thinking of corn, wheat, rice, soy---what is the nutritional detriment effect of current and projected carbon levels in the air on these and other massive food crops?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Nihilo View Post
                OK. The thought with bamboo and dumping it into the sea was to keep it fixed as a solid, and not permit it back into the atmosphere. What happens to phytoplankton once it grows and dies?
                Generally gets eaten by zooplankton.


                Which generally gets eaten by krill or other small sea animals.


                Which get eaten by penquins, whales, small fish, etc. Oh, and harvested by Russians for food. Increases fish stocks which we can use.

                Does the carbon ultimately return to the atmosphere or does it too stay put?
                Cycles through the ecosystem...


                Some drops to the bottom, gets covered by sediment, and become geologically locked, like coal, oil, and natural gas. One huge wild card is the enormous amount of carbon locked in permafrost. If it thaws, it will be rapidly released, mostly as methane, which is a much more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. We just don't know right now, how much that will warm up things.

                How? I'm thinking of corn, wheat, rice, soy---what is the nutritional detriment effect of current and projected carbon levels in the air on these and other massive food crops?
                It's still being investigated but we have some findings now...

                Ziska recently teamed up with an international group of scientists to study whether high CO2 had an effect on the rice's nutrition. "Was it changing not just how the plant grew, but the quality of the plant?" he asked.

                They tested how 18 different kinds of rice responded to CO2 levels that are projected by the end of the century, based on conservative estimates, Ziska says.

                The technique they used, called free-air CO2 enrichment, allowed them to grow the rice and add CO2 to the air immediately surrounding the plants using a big hoop in the middle of a field, Ziska explains. They did this over multiple years in facilities in Japan and China.

                And the effect was clear: Higher CO2 reduced multiple key measures of rice's nutritional value. Across the different types of rice, they observed average decreases of 10 percent in protein, 8 percent in iron and 5 percent in zinc. Four important B vitamins decreased between 13 and 30 percent. The research was recently published in Science Advances.

                Higher carbon dioxide is not just affecting rice. There's evidence that the scope of this is much bigger. Harvard's Sam Myers, who studies the impact of climate change on nutrition, has tested CO2's impact on the protein, iron and zinc of a number of staple crops using the same free-air CO2 enrichment technique.

                "Most of the food crops that we consume showed these nutrient reductions," Myers says.
                Climate Change Means 'Virtually No Male Turtles' Born In A Key Nesting Ground
                The Two-Way
                Climate Change Means 'Virtually No Male Turtles' Born In A Key Nesting Ground

                The effects varied somewhat — he says wheat showed declines in protein, iron and zinc, and soybeans and field peas showed declines in iron and zinc. Maize and sorghum were less affected.

                https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...sing-nutrients

                Can we breed plants that don't have this defect? Almost certainly, given enough time and money. We may not have the time or the money.
                This message is hidden because ...

                Comment


                • Climate change is the biggest hoax in the earth since the globe model and the Garden Of Eden.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by patrick jane View Post
                    Climate change is the biggest hoax in the earth since the globe model and the Garden Of Eden.


                    The climate change hoax has much in common with the flat earth hoax (and the 'theory of evolution' hoax too).
                    All of my ancestors are human.
                    Originally posted by Squeaky
                    That explains why your an idiot.
                    Originally posted by God's Truth
                    Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                    Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                    (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                    1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                    (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                    Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                    Comment


                    • Climate change is just a fact. It's well-documented, and no one who knows the evidence denies a warming trend that has accelerated in recent decades.

                      Most deniers have now admitted the fact of change, but are merely claiming that humans aren't the cause.

                      But that's not deniable, either.
                      This message is hidden because ...

                      Comment


                      • Flat Earthism and the idea that human activity is not responsible for climate change are two of the most prevalent conspiracy theories today. Both have been increasing in popularity since the late 20th century. Currently, 16% of the US population say they doubt the scientifically established shape of the Earth, while 40% think that human-induced climate change is a hoax. But proponents of one of these theories are not necessarily proponents of the other, even though both are often motivated by a common mistrust of authority. In fact, they regularly contradict one another.

                        Flat Earthers, for example, tend to disbelieve organisations such as NASA on the shape of Antarctica – or indeed, that there is a southern hemisphere at all. Yet the president of the Flat Earth Society, Daniel Shenton, is quite convinced – presumably at least in part thanks to information from NASA – that climate change is happening and espouses a fairly conventional view on the subject.

                        Former White House communications director, Anthony Scaramucci (dismissed by president Trump after ten days in office), meanwhile, believes that the Earth is in fact round, but does not believe in anthropogenic climate change, as he made clear in an interview with CNN.

                        Such selective reasoning is common among conspiracy theorists who often lack consistency with one other. Despite this, the media, celebrities and even politicians regularly make broad comparisons between climate change scepticism, Flat Earthism and other conspiracy theories.

                        Indeed, one of the few commonalities which exist between all major conspiracy theories is that somehow scientists and governments are involved in a grand conspiracy for reasons unknown.

                        A major part of the scientific anthropogenic climate change argument is that there is an increase in temperature extremes in both summer and winter. Evidently, a Flat Earth model cannot support this; in fact, the most accepted Flat Earth model, which maintains that the sun rotates in a non-variable circular orbit over the flat disk, implies that there should be no seasons at all, let alone multi-decadal seasonal extremes due to climate change. Nevertheless, to quote Shenton:

                        Climate change is a process which has been ongoing since (the) beginning of detectable history, but there seems to be a definite correlation between the recent increase in worldwide temperatures and man’s entry into the industrial age.
                        ...
                        Anthropogenic climate change sceptics, on the other hand, are often willing to accept the science behind the Earth’s natural cycles, which they blame – instead of human activity – for the world’s weather woes. Clearly, we again find an implicit difference of opinion between a Flat Earth model, and a non-anthropogenic climate change one.

                        It is also clear that many climate change sceptics believe in the (approximately) spherical Earth, even if only subconsciously, by their use of scientifically accepted global maps when discussing data – not to mention when calling it “global” warming.

                        But the problem isn’t likely to go away any time soon. The US has the highest number of believers in both flat-Earthism and anthropogenic climate change scepticism, and the UK is not far behind. The US also has a high number (more than 50%) of senior political figures who deny man-made climate change, not to mention a democratically elected leader vocally believing the same. There are also numerous well-known celebrities who question the established shape of our planet.

                        While of course scientists can play the blame game, it could be that the scientific method itself is a major limiting factor in communicating results with the public. Science is not just a body of knowledge, but a method of critical thinking.

                        https://theconversation.com/flat-ear...ch-other-96060
                        This message is hidden because ...

                        Comment


                        • Here's an (perhaps inadvertently) honest explanation as to why so many flat Earthers are creationists:

                          However, there are those in the movement who believe that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat, and that to accept the man-made scientific models in rejection of the Bible is folly.

                          But… isn’t that what WE say? Don’t creationists argue that we should stand on the word of God and reject man-made scientific models which clash with His unchanging word? ARE Creationists… flat earthers?

                          On the surface, this sounds very similar because, to an extent, it is similar. We do believe that our authority is the Bible. We do believe that scientific models which clash with the Bible should be rejected because the Bible is our authority (and ultimately they will be shown to be false). However, there is one very important KEY difference between how Young Earth Creationists and Flat Earthers treat the Bible: Flat Earthers insist we stand firm on what the Bible SAYS, but we Young Earth Creationists believe we should stand firm on what the Bible MEANS.

                          https://creationtoday.org/flat-earth...l-perspective/

                          Notice that this creationist is using the same argument against flat-Earthers that mainstream Christians use against creationists.
                          This message is hidden because ...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                            Climate change is just a fact.
                            It's also pseudo-science gobbledegook. The climate changes. Whoop de doo.
                            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                            E≈mc2
                            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                            -Bob B.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                              Notice that this creationist is using the same argument against flat-Earthers that mainstream Christians use against creationists.
                              The difference being we can read the Bible instead of your stupid analysis. It says and means "six days" and "the whole Earth."

                              It never says flat Earth and never means it.

                              It also never says Darwinism or means it.

                              Lookitthat: Flat Earthism is Darwinism.
                              Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                              E≈mc2
                              "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                              "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                              -Bob B.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                                It's also pseudo-science gobbledegook. The climate changes. Whoop de doo.
                                According to many scientists, the earth was greatly covered with ice not that long ago. And it warmed greatly before cars and factories, etc. etc. Go figure.
                                All of my ancestors are human.
                                Originally posted by Squeaky
                                That explains why your an idiot.
                                Originally posted by God's Truth
                                Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
                                Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
                                (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

                                1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
                                (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

                                Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X