Why I deny manmade climate change.

[joeb]

I don't know if this is the correct forum for this or not.  It's often seen as a poltical question but I see the question in the context of Genesis.

I've known about the following for several decades but it is lately becoming big news.  That news is that the earth's magnetic field is collapsing. 

As the earth's magnetic field is what holds the ozone layer in place so it hasn't just floated off into space long ago this is a very logical and scientific explanation for the ozone layer disappating.  The science is beyond doubt and the magnetic field is collapsing rapidly enough that it is measurably weaker year to year.  Do a Google search for the earth's magnetic field collapsing.

Now, when you combine this with sunspot cycles you get measurable fluctuations in earths temperature because of the fluctuations in the sun's output.  This once again is very sound science.  It' based upon science we use on a daily basis in our lives.  There are three ways heat is transferred:  conduction, convection, and radiation.  And, heat always from from hot to cold.  Not that an object has to be "cold" to absorb heat, just that there has to be a measurable difference in the temperatures of two objects.   In a closed system the warmer object will radiate it's energy to the cooler object until they reach a point of equilibrium in temperature and then all heat transfer stops. 

You can verify what I said quite easily.  Take a radiant heater with a variable output and hang a sphere on a string so that it both spins and stays a constant distance from the heat source.  Now, vary the output from the heat source and you will find there will be a corresponding variation in the temperature of the sphere.  The temperature change in the sphere will lag behind the changes in the heat output.  That time lag will always remain the same as long as the distance and rotation speed of the sphere remain constant in relation to the heat source.  

Scientists have already proven. by comparing sunspot activity to changes in earth's temperature this happens on earth.  They have charted this out over an extended period of time.  The book Dark Winter documents this very well. 

What does this have to do with Genesis?  The Genesis story of the flood tells us the fountains of the deep were broken up and spouted their water into the atmosphere.  Ellen White says the same thing.  Now, how could these immense volumes of water have suddenly broken through the earth's crust?  Because the earth's crust was broken up at the same time.  It's the only way possible for that to happen in a heretofore stable planet.  Now, what happens to the magnetic field of the earth when the crust is broken up?  That variation in the earth itself creates problems in the magnetic field too.  You can't have change to the structure of the earth without changing the magnetic field.  It's impossible. 

This is why I completely deny manmade global warming.  I deny it based upon solid, undisputable, science and what the Bible tells us happened during the flood. 

[Bravus]

Duuudddeee...

Two quick facts:

1. Ozone is held in place by gravity, not the earth's magnetic field.

2. Ozone is close to irrelevant to climate change: it is a greenhouse gas, but far less relevant than at least 4 others. The chlorofluorocarbons that damage the ozone layer are also greenhouse gases... and that's one more human effect.

And one more:

3. We know by how much the sun's energy output has fluctuated, and making all the highest possible assumptions, it can account for less than 30% of the observed warming.

Those alone mean that your science is fundamentally flawed from top to bottom.

Argue from theology all you like, but if you want to argue from science, you have to at the very least get the basics right.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

This is why I completely deny manmade global warming.  I deny it based upon solid, undisputable, science and what the Bible tells us happened during the flood. 

The scientific basis for understanding global warming is solid, although probably not complete.  The known  science does not lead, as you suggest to a conclusion of a total denial of manmade global warming.  Rather the solid science tells us that the following are factors in global warming:

1)   There are so-called natural processes taking place on the planet today, over which humans have no control, that promote climate change.  You have not listed some of those more important ones.

2)   There are some processes taking place that promote climate change that are a result of human activity.  These we can control and in doing so we will effect climate change.

3)   The climate change that is taking place is significant enough that in order to provide for our future on living on this planet, we must work to deal with the human processes that we can affect.

NOTE;  If you wish to understand this issue, I suggest that you start with understanding the work of Mario Molina, Paul Crutzen and F. Sherwoor Rowland, who in 1995 received the Nobel Prize in chemistry for their groundbreaking work in their study of the chemical mechanisms that affect the thickness of the ozone layer.  This will only be a beginning, but it will be a  good start.

 

[joeb]

I just spent 45 minutes or so writing a reply and when I clicked submit I found out my wifi connection had dropped out so I ended up losing all of it.  I don't have time to rewrite it now so I'll answer on some other day when I get to town again and have the time to do all the research I did to answer your objections to my post. 

 

For now here's a Biblical reply to your ideas. 

Quote

Isaiah 56: 6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

I'll be interested to see if you understand my point.

[Gregory Matthews]

Joeb said:

 

Quote

And, heat always from from hot to cold. 

 

Actually heat does not always transfer from hot to cold--transfer from an object that is at a higher temperature than  the object to which it is transferred.

I am sitting in a room, as I write this note, that has been heated to 66 degrees F.  I am comfortable today at that temperature, but if I was not I could have it heated to 72 degrees F, if I chose, or higher.

This room is heated by transferring heat from the earth outside of the room, which is at a much lower temperature than the 66 degrees to which I have heated this room.

Joeb, heat can be transferred from cold to hot and it has been done for decades.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Joeb, clarification please:

Are you telling us that the sun actually transfers heat across the vast distance between the Earth and the Sun? 

[joeb]

On 3/29/2016 at 2:10 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

Joeb said:

 

 

Actually heat does not always transfer from hot to cold--transfer from an object that is at a higher temperature than  the object to which it is transferred.

I am sitting in a room, as I write this note, that has been heated to 66 degrees F.  I am comfortable today at that temperature, but if I was not I could have it heated to 72 degrees F, if I chose, or higher.

This room is heated by transferring heat from the earth outside of the room, which is at a much lower temperature than the 66 degrees to which I have heated this room.

Joeb, heat can be transferred from cold to hot and it has been done for decades.

 

You're so wrong it's not funny.  Heat always flows from hot to cold.  A heat pump, which is most likely what you're talking about, uses this principle.  All you're doing is exhibiting the fact that you have no understanding of how a heat pump works. 

Maybe the least you ought to do is read the wikipedia page on heat transfer..... 

The fact that you confuse so many issues on this subject says your ignorance on this subject is high.  As I worked with the transfer of heat for a living for decades I have a very good understanding of how it works.  Here's a small tidbit as to how well I understand it.  I have taken manufacturers classes on heat pumps, ACs, furnaces, etc....  My knowledge in this area allowed me to ace the tests given at the beginning of their classes--the tests were given to be able to judge the existing knowledge of the students.  I was told more than once by manufacturer's reps that I was joined by only one other person in acing their tests in the decades they had been teaching technicians. 

Your little bit about room temperature says you simply do not comprehend the subject.  You produce heat so heat flows from you to the room.  The fact that you are comfortable one day at one temperature and another day at another temperature has everything to do with relative humidity and at what levels of the relationship between relative humidity humidity and room temperature exist at the time....     

[joeb]

On 3/29/2016 at 2:16 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

Joeb, clarification please:

Are you telling us that the sun actually transfers heat across the vast distance between the Earth and the Sun? 

LOL.  Ever heard of day and night?  Why is the air cooler at night?  A perfect practical demonstration of the sun heating the earth....

[joeb]

One more practical demonstration of the sun heating the earth is winter and summer.  When the angle between the sun and earth changes with the changes in the seasons either more or less of the sun's radiation comes through the earth's atmosphere and thus the drop in temperature in the winter and the rise in temperature during the summer.....  

I can't believe this is even being disputed.  This is grade school level science....  And you guys think you can lecture me on science?????

[joeb]

Here's my commentary on Isaiah 56:6, at least I think that's the text I quoted above....

Take a look at the wording of this text, especially the first part of it.  The earth is going to wear out.  It's going to wear out like old clothes wear out.  What happens to old clothes, they develop holes in them as they keep getting thinner and thinner.  Now, since the atmosphere of our earth is part of our earth, and our earth is going to develop holes in it and the heavens are going to vanish like smoke, what is the lesson  we can draw from that?  That parts of our atmospheric protection is going to dissolve and it's due to the earth wearing out.  What started that process?  Sin.  What gave a big jump start to this?  The flood and the breakup of the earth's crust.  

God foresaw all of this and He's told us about it so we might know what is happening before it actually happens.  What will happen if the ozone layer is mostly/completely destroyed by the collapse of the earth's magnetic field?  We will die like ants under the intense radiation doses coming from the sun. 

The Little Ice Age, from 17th to early 18th centuries was caused by a .25% reduction in solar output caused by a lack of sunspot activity.  This is not denied by any credible climatologists.  Here we have a major climate fluctuation caused by lack of sunspot activity.  And, at least half of the 0.55 celsius rise in earth's temperature since 1860 is due to solar activity.  Not in dispute.  Both the drop and the rise are due to the sun..  And, this area isn't fully understood as yet so it is very possible that science will yet change it's mind and attribute more of the warming to sun spot activity.  As the sun is the main source of heat for the earth it is very logical to say the sun is responsible for climate change here.  Reductions and increases in solar output affect our earth in very tangible ways.

[Bravus]

There has been a historic *minimum* in sunspot activity over the past couple of decades, associated with historic *maxima* in global temperatures. We would expect the opposite, if solar effects predominated.

You continue to focus on the ozone layer, when (a) it is close to irrelevant to climate change and (b) where it is relevant is that chlorofluorocarbons are greenhouse gases, and the same thing that damages the ozone contributes to the greenhouse effect. But it is the greenhouse effect, not the lack of ozone, that leads to the heating.

[Gregory Matthews]

Joeb said:

 

Quote

LOL.  Ever heard of day and night?  Why is the air cooler at night?  A perfect practical demonstration of the sun heating the earth....

 

My understanding is that the sun sends radiation across space to the Earth.  That radiation generates heat.

My comment/question was not related to the sun heating the Earth.  I asked it was said that heat was transmitted across space. 

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Joeb, you asked me to consult with Wikipedia and their article on heat transfer.  So, I shall quote from it:

  

On a microscopic scale, heat conduction occurs as hot, rapidly moving or vibrating atoms and molecules interact with neighboring atoms and molecules, transferring some of their energy (heat) to these neighboring particles. In other words, heat is transferred by conduction when adjacent atoms vibrate against one another, or as electrons move from one atom to another. Conduction is the most significant means of heat transfer within a solid or between solid objects in thermal contact. Fluids—especially gases—are less conductive. Thermal contact conductance is the study of heat conduction between solid bodies in contact.[8]

* ** * * * * * * * * * * *

Convective heat transfer, or convection, is the transfer of heat from one place to another by the movement of fluids, a process that is essentially the transfer of heat via mass transfer. Bulk motion of fluid enhances heat transfer in many physical situations, such as (for example) between a solid surface and the fluid.[10] Convection is usually the dominant form of heat transfer in liquids and gases.

Thermal radiation occurs through a vacuum or any transparent medium (solid or fluid). It is the transfer of energy by means of photons in electromagnetic waves governed by the same laws.[13] Earth's radiation balance depends on the incoming and the outgoing thermal radiation, Earth's energy budget. Anthropogenic perturbations in the climate system are responsible for a positive radiative forcing which reduces the net longwave radiation loss to space.

Thermal radiation is energy emitted by matter as electromagnetic waves, due to the pool of thermal energy in all matter with a temperature above absolute zero. Thermal radiation propagates without the presence of matter through the vacuum of space.[14]

Thermal radiation is a direct result of the random movements of atoms and molecules in matter. Since these atoms and molecules are composed of charged particles (protons and electrons), their movement results in the emission of electromagnetic radiation, which carries energy away from the surface.

 

 

 

Heat is transferred when rapidly moving atoms and/;or molecules interact with other atoms and molecules.  That is exactly as you say.

However, the Earth does not receive heat directly from the sun due to either conduction or convection.  Rather the sun sends out radiation, which is not heat.  That radiation interacts with atoms and molecules in the atmosphere  of the Earth and/or objects that are liquid or solid, or a gas.  That interaction of the radiation generates a change in the temperature of that object.    IOW, heat is generated.  It is not the actual transfer of heat between the sun and the Earth.

Yes, of course, the sun does heat the Earth.  That heating is due to the energy that comes in the radiation from the Sun and increases the temperature..

[Gregory Matthews]

Heat is transferred when rapidly moving atoms and/;or molecules interact with other atoms and molecules.  That is exactly as you say.

However, the Earth does not receive heat directly from the sun due to either conduction or convection.  Rather the sun sends out radiation, which is not heat.  That radiation interacts with atoms and molecules in the atmosphere  of the Earth and/or objects that are liquid or solid, or a gas.  That interaction of the radiation generates a change in the temperature of that object.    IOW, heat is generated.  It is not the actual transfer of heat between the sun and the Earth.

Yes, of course, the sun does heat the Earth.  That heating is due to the energy that comes in the radiation from the Sun and increases the temperature..

[Gregory Matthews]

Joeb, actually a heat pump can transfer heat from a colder source to a warmer object.  As an expert in heat pumps, you should know that.  In any case, you have advised me to check Wikipedia on this subject.  I have done so and here is what it says, which is exactly what I have said:

 

Quote

A heat pump is a device that provides heat energy from a source of heat to a destination called a "heat sink". Heat pumps are designed to move thermal energy opposite to the direction of spontaneous heat flow by absorbing heat from a cold space and releasing it to a warmer one.

 

 

NOTE:  Heat pumps move thermal energy opposite from spontaneous heat flow.  They move heat from a colder source to a warmer source.

I stand by exactly what I said.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Joeb said:

 

Quote

This is grade school level science.... 

 

I disagree with that.  But, perhaps you are correct.  I am uncertain that grade school students study the operation of a heat pump which moves opposite to convention.  Perhaps I am wrong.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I never could understand the mechanics of the heat pump.  I'm just happy it works.

[Gregory Matthews]

Joeb, every object contains heat as that is a property of atoms and molecules.

Every object that is heated above Absolute Zero on the Kelvin scale contains heat that can be removed, in theory and transferred elsewhere.  Of course we humans are inefficient and we can only cool an object to within a few billion parts of a degree above Absolute Zero K.

For those who prefer to use well known scales, Absolute Zero on the Kelvin scale converts to:

-273.15 on the C scale,

-459.67 on the F scale.

 

 

[Bravus]

Refrigeration typically uses either compression and rarefaction of gases or changes of state from liquid to gas and back again to transfer energy. Heat and temperature are not the same thing, and not all energy is heat energy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is often stated as 'heat cannot, of itself, move from a cooler to a hotter body', but that is likely to be overly simple, given the specific heats of different materials, latent heats of fusion and vaporisation and so on.

I think this is a little bit of a side-track from the main discussion in the thread anyway.

Basically, the mechanisms discussed in the first post do not refute human-caused climate change because they are largely irrelevant to the mechanisms proposed as the causes of climate change. 

[Gregory Matthews]

David I agree.  And, I have never claimed to always be correct.  I am not.

But, I was amused by Joeb's  comments about my level of ignorance and his later suggestion that  I refer to the Wikipedia page.  The reality is that Wikipedia actually says what I was saying.  I have never considered Wikipedia to make the most accurate and precise statements.  They often make their comments in common parlance.  Even if that is what has happened here, is simply shows that  Joeb either did not read the Wikipedia article that he referenced or that he did not understand it.

You're so wrong it's not funny.  Heat always flows from hot to cold.  A heat pump, which is most likely what you're talking about, uses this principle.  All you're doing is exhibiting the fact that you have no understanding of how a heat pump works. 

Maybe the least you ought to do is read the wikipedia page on heat transfer..... 

The fact that you confuse so many issues on this subject says your ignorance on this subject is high. 

[Green Cochoa]

14 hours ago, David Geelan said:

There has been a historic *minimum* in sunspot activity over the past couple of decades, associated with historic *maxima* in global temperatures. We would expect the opposite, if solar effects predominated.

You continue to focus on the ozone layer, when (a) it is close to irrelevant to climate change and (b) where it is relevant is that chlorofluorocarbons are greenhouse gases, and the same thing that damages the ozone contributes to the greenhouse effect. But it is the greenhouse effect, not the lack of ozone, that leads to the heating.

David,

You said earlier that ozone is a greenhouse gas.  Perhaps you should take that into account.  You see, according to scientists at NASA, the sun's ultraviolet rays are responsible for creating ozone.  Ozone holes have been opening during this lull in solar activity, and, consequently, despite other factors increasing the heating of the planet, the sun itself has perhaps reduced its share of the responsibility.  I think the sun may yet increase its activity, and the earth's ecosystem having already weakened to the point of no longer maintaining a proper balance, will succumb to the plague of heat predicted in Revelation.

I agree with you that the earth's magnetism has little to do with the maintenance of the ozone layer.  In fact, if I understand things correctly, a weaker magnetism should permit more of the sun's harmful radiation to enter, some of which create the ozone.  Certainly, it is the earth's gravity which holds our atmosphere.  

 

[Green Cochoa]

12 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Heat is transferred when rapidly moving atoms and/;or molecules interact with other atoms and molecules.  That is exactly as you say.

However, the Earth does not receive heat directly from the sun due to either conduction or convection.  Rather the sun sends out radiation, which is not heat.  That radiation interacts with atoms and molecules in the atmosphere  of the Earth and/or objects that are liquid or solid, or a gas.  That interaction of the radiation generates a change in the temperature of that object.    IOW, heat is generated.  It is not the actual transfer of heat between the sun and the Earth.

Yes, of course, the sun does heat the Earth.  That heating is due to the energy that comes in the radiation from the Sun and increases the temperature..

You are entering a highly polarized (no pun intended) discussion that even physicists debate and for which there is not a 100% consensus.  Perhaps against the majority, a significant minority, including myself, believe that heat is present in the actual photons of light.  Here's where the issue really breaks down: does light have mass?  If yes, then clearly heat would be transferrable from it.  That is my position.  I know that many scientists would think it a laughable one, but then, many scientists also prefer to believe in the "flying spaghetti monster" instead of in God.  The fact is, our electron microscopes cannot look at a photon of light.  It would be, perhaps, tantamount to trying to bounce basketballs off of a bacterium and then trying to "see" it by measuring the basketballs' deflections.  What scientists work with, instead, is math.  Their theories of light are essentially based on mathematical calculations, not so much on practical and observable scientific experimentation.  I'm not saying they haven't done experiments--but their experiments, as the electron microscope question shows, simply cannot come near enough to the truth.  

To illustrate the degree of confusion that can exist when people simply do not fully understand something because it's still beyond our collective scope of knowledge, consider the following statement made by a NASA scientist about light.

Quote

 Light, X-rays, radio etc. are electromagnetic waves, wave-like disturbances propagating in space. They carry no electric charge, and in empty space they are notaffected by magnetism. (When passing through matter they can be modified--e.g. light is refracted by glass--and that modification may strongly on magnetic fields, but that's a different case). What absorbs those waves is matter, e.g. atoms and molecules: when a wave encounters those, it may suddenly materialize as a compact "photon" and deposit its energy.

How did this so-called "electromagnetic wave" "suddenly materialize" in a compact "photon"?  When I took physics class, I learned that one of the fundamental rules is that matter can be neither created nor destroyed.  It was called the "conservation of mass" principle.  If this "photon" has "suddenly materialized," it must needs have been matter all along.

Consider, too, that the sun is said to lose TONS of mass every day.  If it has so much gravity, why such loss?  If energy alone has no mass. . .?  There are simply too many question marks in such a theory that would maintain that matter is converting to energy and then back to matter.

Yes, the sun heats the earth.  Yes, heat is energy.  Yes, that energy came from the sun.  Therefore, in simple terms, heat passes through space.  Scientists prefer to call the manner in which this is done "radiation," as opposed to convection or conduction.

[Gregory Matthews]

Ah, shucks.   I am having fun with this thread.

However, I Remind you that present day physics tells us that energy can be converted onto matter, and matter can be converted into energy.

 

 

[JoeMo]

On ‎3‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 8:16 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

Are you telling us that the sun actually transfers heat across the vast distance between the Earth and the Sun? 

The answer is yes; and the basic mechanism for this is radiation, which is heat transferred by means of infrared radiation through space - the same way a heat dish transfers heat directly to your body through the air, or the same way music is transferred to your radio from a transmitter.

[Bravus]

Correct, except that the energy from the sun reaches us as short-wavelength ultraviolet and visible radiation, and then is converted by a range of processes into long-wavelength infrared radiation, which is radiated back into space. 

The earth's energy budget should be neutral over all: as much energy radiated as received. 

Greenhouse gases disturb this because they *differentially* scatter and retain infrared radiation much more than visible and ultraviolet radiation, due to their molecular structure and the particular resonant frequencies of their bonds. Rather than being radiated out into space and lost, more of that energy is retained in the atmosphere, warming it.

(the sun's loss of mass is well understood: the fusion processes that power it transform the lost mass into energy)

(the NASA scientist stumbled, not because photons are not well understood, but because it is difficult to explain what is elegantly contained in the mathematics of quantum theory into clumsy English words. The photon does not 'suddenly appear'. The particle was always both wave and particle. Or rather, it was always a photon: both 'wave' and 'particle' are only metaphors that help us explain its behaviour)