|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 15,835
Master Elite Member
|
--CLIMATE ALARMISM AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH~~
--BY: JAKE HEBERT, PH.D. / - ICR= Institute for CREATION RESEARCH~
--Many evangelical Christians think global warming is a serious issue that demands drastic action.1 At the Institute for Creation Research we tend to be skeptical of the claim that increasing amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) will cause Earth to overheat.2 Climate change proponents say their case is built on scientific evidence. However, old-earth beliefs actually make a major contribution to climate change alarmism.
[What Does The Bible Teach Us? -  ]
Climate Sensitivity
The real issue in the climate change debate is climate sensitivity.3 If the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere were to double while everything else stayed the same, the increase in global average surface temperatures would be small, only about 1°C (less than 2°F).4
However, our climate is complicated, and a change in one thing inevitably causes a response somewhere else. Some of these responses are called negative feedbacks, which minimize or oppose a warming tendency. On the other hand, positive feedbacks enhance the initial warming. If climate sensitivity is high, then the effect of positive feedbacks will dominate and there will be a large increase in temperature after the climate has settled down. But if climate sensitivity is low, then the negative feedbacks will tend to balance the positive feedbacks, resulting in a smaller temperature increase.
Scientists worried about climate change tend to think climate sensitivity is very high. Those who are less concerned believe climate sensitivity is low. If we ignore questionable research, there are two main reasons some researchers think climate sensitivity is high.
Computer Climate Models
The first reason arises from predictions made by computer climate models. Many of these models have predicted large amounts of warming. However, the climate is a complex system, and scientists don’t fully understand it. So, these computer models use simplifying assumptions, premises that may be in error.5 In fact, there’s good reason to think these assumptions are in error. Most climate models have, in the past, predicted more warming than we later actually observed.2
One can also use basic physics to estimate climate sensitivity. This is hard to do, but it theoretically should be more reliable than the results of computer models. Interestingly, one such recent study suggests that climate sensitivity is relatively low.5,6
The Astronomical Theory
The second argument for high climate sensitivity comes from old-earth beliefs about past climate change. Secular scientists interpret chemical “wiggles” in deep seafloor sediments as a record of 50 or so ice ages within the past 2.6 million years. However, creation scientists think secular scientists are seriously misinterpreting the sediment data and that there’s strong evidence for only one Ice Age. We think the Genesis Flood caused this Ice Age about 4,500 years ago and that it lasted just hundreds of years.7
In the secular view, our climate slowly alternates between colder glacials (ice ages) and warmer interglacials. Secular scientists think the timing of ice ages is controlled by changes in the way sunlight striking the Earth is distributed with latitude and season. They think these sunlight changes are themselves caused by variations in Earth’s orbital and rotational motions. This particular belief about past climate change is called the astronomical or Milankovitch ice age theory.
The astronomical theory has many problems. First, evidence for the theory is weak, as discussed below. Second, the changes in sunlight are so small that it’s difficult to see how they alone could cause ice ages. Well-known secular astronomer Fred Hoyle once ridiculed the Milankovitch theory for this very reason.7 The astronomical theory only works if these small changes in sunlight can somehow be amplified.
Paleoclimatologists [scientists who study ancient climates] have long recognized that the amount of Milankovitch-induced change in solar heating is too small to melt glaciers or to send Earth into a deep freeze, unless some as yet unidentified part of the climate system amplifies it.8
The Astronomical Theory and Climate Sensitivity
So, what do secular scientists think is amplifying these small changes in sunlight? If you guessed carbon dioxide, go to the head of the class!
Simulations with global climate models show that the amplitude [size] of glacial-interglacial temperature changes can only be reproduced if CO2 changes are accounted for.…This leads us to conclude that CO2 changes are an important (feedback) factor in determining glacial-interglacial temperature changes although the ultimate cause of the ice age cycles are Earth’s orbital cycles.9
Figure 1. The circular reasoning used by uniformitarian (old-earth) scientists to conclude that climate sensitivity is high.
Do you follow the reasoning? Secular scientists have convinced themselves that the Milankovitch theory is correct. However, they realize the changes in sunlight predicted by the theory are too small to alone cause ice ages. Furthermore, computer models can only reproduce supposed past temperature changes if the models assume that CO2 helps amplify the effect of these small changes (Figure 1). In other words, they assume CO2 is a major positive feedback. They also assume that the negative feedbacks that are known to exist will not be large enough to resist this CO2-enhanced warming. One scientist makes the argument this way:
Thus when arguing for low climate sensitivity, it becomes difficult to explain past climate changes. For example, between glacial and interglacial periods, the planet’s average temperature changes on the order of 6°C (more like 8-10°C in the Antarctic). If the climate sensitivity is low, for example due to increasing low-lying cloud cover reflecting more sunlight as a response to global warming, then how can these large past temperature changes be explained?10
He goes on to say:
The main limit on the [climate] sensitivity value is that it has to be consistent with paleoclimate data. A sensitivity which is too low will be inconsistent with past climate changes – basically if there is some large negative feedback which makes the sensitivity too low, it would have prevented the planet from transitioning from ice ages to interglacial periods, for example.10
Obviously, these conclusions are only correct if the astronomical theory itself is correct. So, how strong is the evidence for the theory?
The Astronomical Theory: What’s the Evidence?
Evidence for the astronomical theory is not strong at all. I am aware of only two papers that come anywhere close to providing objective evidence for the astronomical theory, even by secular, old-earth reckoning. Original ICR research revealed very serious problems with the first paper.11,12 The second paper purports to confirm the theory but is not very convincing. In fact, it appears to be an attempt to discreetly “prop up” the first paper.8,13,14
Two factors make the theory seem much stronger than it really is. One is the sheer number of published papers on the subject. An internet search for “Milankovitch theory” produces more than 100,000 results! However, nearly all the technical papers on the subject simply assume the theory to be correct. Secular scientists then use that assumption to assign ages to ice and deep-sea cores and/or to draw conclusions about past or future climate change.
Figure 2. Chart showing a close agreement, apparently lasting hundreds of thousands of years, between inferred temperatures and global ice volume. The blue and green lines reflect temperature changes inferred from chemical measurements in two Antarctic ice cores. The red line is global ice volume inferred from chemical measurements in deep-sea sediment cores. Despite appearances, charts such as these are not strong arguments either for an old earth or for the astronomical theory.
The second factor is the existence of charts such as the one in Figure 2. These kinds of charts are extremely common in both popular and technical science publications. The blue and green lines are changes in temperature inferred from the chemistry of two deep Antarctic ice cores. The red line is global ice volume inferred from the chemistry of deep-sea sediments. Note that the red pattern is upside down, with “high” ice volumes at the bottom and “low” ice volumes at the top. The three sets of wiggles seem to track very well with each other. Ice volume increases when temperature falls and decreases when temperature rises. It looks like all three lines are telling a consistent story about climate change over the last 450,000 years. Furthermore, it’s not too hard to show that the times of greatest ice volume agree with Milanovitch expectations.
This might seem to be an incredibly powerful argument for both an old earth and the astronomical theory. If independent datasets are telling the same story about climate change over hundreds of thousands of years, how can any reasonable person doubt either millions of years or the astronomical theory?
Orbital Tuning Tailors the Results
But the appearance of this argument’s validity is actually superficial because the datasets are not independent. When scientists extract cores from the ocean floor and ice sheets, the cores don’t come with marked ages. Secular scientists recognize that radioisotope dating methods are of little help in dating the cores. For this reason, they use the astronomical theory to assign ages to the cores in a process called orbital tuning.15 They think that maximum and minimum values of chemical wiggles in the cores indicate the deepest parts of cold glacials and the warmest parts of warm interglacials. Furthermore, they think the astronomical theory gives them the times in the prehistoric past at which these climate changes occurred. The tuning process requires some sections of the wiggly patterns to be “squished” and other sections to be “stretched” in an accordion-like fashion.
Orbital tuning involves a huge potential for self-deception because it gives the “tuner” the freedom to selectively stretch and compress different parts of the chemical wiggle patterns in the sediment and ice cores. With this freedom, there’s a good chance that the tuner can force the pattern to look like those shown in Figure 2. This is true even if the wiggles have nothing at all to do with climate. This means you can force the patterns to agree with the Milankovitch theory even if the theory is wrong! Even secular scientists have given pointed warnings about the dangers of circular reasoning in orbital tuning.14-16 This is why Figure 2, despite appearances, is really not a strong argument for the astronomical theory. The wiggly patterns agree with the theory because orbital tuning made them agree!
An Informed Response
Before Christians jump on the climate change bandwagon, they need to understand why secular scientists are making the claims they do. These scientists say our climate is very sensitive to changes in carbon dioxide (CO2) because of the results of computer climate models and their old-earth interpretation of chemical wiggles in deep-sea sediments. However, the computer models are likely overestimating climate sensitivity. Likewise, the old-earth interpretation of deep-sea sediment data is coming from the astronomical (Milankovitch) ice age theory. Yet there is little, if any, evidence for this theory, even by secular reckoning.
God gave His promise to Noah after the Flood for an overall climate stability. Tweet: God gave His promise to Noah after the Flood for an overall climate stability.
Although Christians should certainly practice good stewardship over the earth, we don’t need to succumb to demands for drastic action based on faulty science and millions-of-years manipulations. We’d expect climate sensitivity to be low because God has designed Earth and its systems and gave His promise to Noah after the Flood for an overall climate stability (Genesis 8:22).
--Information/ ICR= INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH/ (April 2019) ACTS & FACTS~
[This information is from a Christian/ Creation Research Magazine. They hold the view of a 'YEC' / Young Earth Creation/ [Approximately 6,000-8,000 yrs old.]- <ICR.ORG>
Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." [John 14:6]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 15,835
Master Elite Member
|
Friends,
We must be aware that as Christians, we must believe the Word of God, the Holy Bible.
Christians do not believe in evolution. We will post an article from 'Answers In Genesis'.
--(Ken Ham)-- 
~~~~~~~~~
--Can we call creation “very good” in the face of climate change? That’s the question posed by “eco-theologian” and Presbyterian minister Dr. Neddy Astudillo in a recent article. She describes the alleged challenges our world will face—food shortages, wildfires, heat waves, coastal flooding, and poverty—if climate change continues and then writes, “this impending reality challenges my understanding of creation as good.” But does she have the correct view of what “very good” means in the first place?
Dr. Astudillo whole-heartedly believes climate change is caused by humans and that it will be devastating to life on earth. Now, climate change is real. We can observe that climates change. But much of climate change science is driven by an erroneous interpretation of the past. You see, if you approach the evidence with an evolutionary worldview and the idea that climates have remained relatively stable since the last ice age 12,000 years ago, you will interpret the small changes in our climate today as a result of modern human activity and be much more likely to extrapolate these into huge changes for the environment.
--- But believers must start with the history in God’s Word. And that history tells us something very different. And Dr. Astrudillo would do well to pay heed to that history. She writes, “If human presence in this land led the Genesis writer to declare God’s creation as ‘very good,’ how can I hold the findings of this report alongside my statement of faith in humanity?”
First of all, it wasn’t only human presence that made God’s creation “very good” (although humans, uniquely made in his image, are the pinnacle of his creation and it was only after the 6th day when land animals and then man were made, that God called all of creation very good). Genesis 1:31 (the sixth day) tells us God saw everything he had made, and it was very good (throughout Genesis 1, at the end of each day, with the exception of day 2, God looks at what he has made and declares it good). All of God’s completed creation was very good in the beginning.
When Adam and Eve rebelled against God, creation was broken.
But all of that changed with sin (something Dr. Astrudillo never mentions). When Adam and Eve rebelled against God, creation was broken. It was no longer very good—and that includes the climate! As Romans describes, the creation today groans because of sin—it’s a fallen creation. Then the global flood of Noah’s day (about 4,300 years ago) radically changed the climate, resulting in a post-flood ice age shortly thereafter. Earth has been slowly settling down since this catastrophic event. So, from a biblical perspective, small changes in the climate are not alarming and not necessarily directly caused by man’s activities. And such changes have been going on ever since the flood.
Dr. Astrudillo appears to be claiming that God’s creation is no longer “very good” because of recent human-caused climate change. But, the truth is, God’s creation—including the climate—is no longer “very good” because of man’s sin 6000 years ago. It’s our sin that is responsible for creation’s brokenness.
While we should certainly strive to protect our planet and care for it, we as believers can look forward to a day when we will have a new heavens and new earth that will not be affected by sin. What a glorious day that will be!  "Even so, Come Lord Jesus." ~~
Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." [John 14:6]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 15,835
Master Elite Member
|
----- --HOW SHOULD A CHRISTIAN VIEW GLOBAL WARMING?
Answer: As Christians, we should be concerned about our effect on our environment. God appointed man to be the steward of this world (Genesis 1:28), not the destroyer of it. However, we should not allow environmentalism to become a form of idolatry, where the “rights” of an inanimate planet and its non-human creatures are held in higher esteem than God (Romans 1:25) and man created in His image. With global warming, as with any other topic, it is crucial to understand what the facts are, whom those facts come from, how they are interpreted, and what the spiritual implications are.
A careful look at global warming, as a topic, shows that there is a great deal of disagreement about the facts and substance of climate change. Those who blame man for climate change often disagree about what facts lead them to that conclusion. Those who hold man totally innocent of it often ignore established facts. Experience and research leads us to believe that warming is, in fact, occurring; however, there is little to no objective evidence that man is the cause, nor that the effects will be catastrophic. The idea of earth “wearing out” is an apt analogy. This entire world has been continually decaying since the fall.
Global warming “facts” are notoriously hard to come by. One of the few facts universally agreed upon is that the current average temperature of Earth is indeed rising at this time. According to most estimates, this increase in temperature amounts to about 0.4-0.8 °C (0.72-1.44 °F) over the last 100 years. Data regarding times before that is not only highly theoretical but very difficult to obtain with any accuracy. The very methods used to obtain historical temperature records are controversial, even among the most ardent supporters of the theory of human-caused climate change. The facts leading one to believe that humans are not responsible for the current change in temperature are as follows:
• Global temperature changes from past millennia, according to available data, were often severe and rapid, long before man supposedly had any impact at all. That is, the current climate change is not as unusual as some alarmists would like to believe.
• Recent recorded history mentions times of noticeable global warming and cooling, long before man had any ability to produce industrial emissions.
• Water vapor, not CO2, is the most influential greenhouse gas. It is difficult to determine what effect, if any, mankind has on worldwide water vapor levels.
• Given the small percentage of human-produced CO2, as compared to other greenhouse gases, human impact on global temperature may be as little as 1%.
• Global temperatures are known to be influenced by other, non-human-controlled factors, such as sunspot activity, orbital movement, volcanic activity, solar system effects, and so forth. CO2 emission is not the only plausible explanation for global warming.
• Ice Age temperature studies, although rough, frequently show temperatures changing before CO2 levels, not after. This calls into question the relationship between warming and carbon dioxide; in some cases, the data could easily be interpreted to indicate that warming caused an increase in carbon dioxide, rather than the reverse!
• Computer simulations used to “predict” or “demonstrate” global warming require the assumption of human causation, and even then are not typically repeatable or reliable. Current computer weather simulations are neither predictive nor repeatable.
• Most of the global temperature increase of the last 100 years occurred before most of the man-made CO2 was produced.
• In the 1970s, global temperatures had actually been dropping since 1945, and a “global cooling” concern became prominent, despite what is now dismissed as a lack of scientific support.
• The “consensus” claimed by most global warming theorists is not scientific proof; rather, it is a statement of majority opinion. Scientific majorities have been wrongly influenced by politics and other factors in the past. Such agreement is not to be taken lightly, but it is not the same thing as hard proof.
• This “consensus,” as with many other scientific theories, can be partially explained by growing hostility to those with differing viewpoints, making it less likely that a person without preconceived notions would take on the subject for research. The financial and political ramifications of the global warming debate are too serious to be ignored, though they should not be central to any discussion.
• The data being used to support anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming is typically based on small data sets, single samples, or measurements taken in completely different regions. This creates an uncertainty in the results that rarely gets the attention that alarmist conclusions do.
While the above list is not exhaustive, it does include several of the major points that raise doubts about mankind’s actual effect on global temperatures. While no one can deny that warming is occurring, “overwhelming evidence” of any objective type does not exist to support the idea that global warming is significantly influenced by human actions. There is plenty of vague, short-sighted, and misunderstood data that can be seen as proving “anthropogenic” global-warming theory. All too often, data used to blame humans for global warming is far less reliable than data used for other areas of study. It is a valid point of contention that the data used in these studies is frequently flawed, easily misinterpreted, and subject to preconception.
In regards to issues such as this, skepticism is not the same as disbelief. There are fragments of evidence to support both sides, and logical reasons to choose one interpretation over another. The question of anthropogenic global warming should not divide Christian believers from each other (Luke 11:17). Environmental issues are important, but they are not the most important questions facing mankind. Christians ought to treat our world with respect and good stewardship, but we should not allow politically driven hysteria to dominate our view of the environment. Our relationship with God is not dependent on our belief in human-caused global warming.
--Information From/ gotquestions.org
Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." [John 14:6]
|
|
|
|
|
