Jump to content
Urantia Book Forum, conversations with other readers
-Scott-

Global Warming -- Truth or Fiction

Recommended Posts

NTF: Wow... where'd that come from? There's been plenty of critical analysis. I think people who want to argue against anthropgenic influence on climate change are in the same boat as people who want to argue that cigarette smoking does not cause cancer,

 

Actually, the manufacturors of asbestos argued that....

 

and that the earth was created in six days.

 

Can you point to a thread on this forum where someone who has actually READ the UB is arguing that...?

 

As far as I can see the evidence is overwhelming.

 

Who do you think you are talking to...? Rachel Carson was vilified for her book and NEVER proved wrong. I watched all the dead fish in the Hudson River pile up as I was growing up in NJ...I'm actually SHOCKED that I am not dead yet from cancer - quite sure it's a time bomb in me from growing up in NJ. And YOU want to focus on "global warming" - seriously, stop avoiding the REAL consequences of PROFIT. I don't see a mac truck driving up to the ISS to refuel them - all the technology IS here and has been here for DECADES, even a CENTURY now. First electric car was built 2 years before 1900.

 

 

But as to the rest of your rant... sorry... I don't get it... something about money and power. But as to how that may tie to discussing climate change and the UB is over my head.

 

This is as insulting as you saying that there is nothing in the UB that is scientifically RELEVANT. Just how much respect do you think you are going to get from people when it's OBVIOUS you have no tolerance for anyone letting TRUTH have a shot at solving your POLITICAL "global warming" red herrring.

 

 

By the way, I'm not a professor and don't really appreciate the sarcasm. I had quite enough of it from Joe.

 

Sorry, the way you were pontificating about "global warming" made me think you were, and the way you dismiss the student who might actually know MORE than you with "I don't know what you are talking about - money and power? - so that MUST mean that you are stupid". You might want to watch The Weather Channel now and then - they appear to have the climate models in place already that you claim someone still needs to develop. Sarcasm is NOT evil - prevarication IS. You can't see the forest for the trees. Just my opinion and we all have one - do a word search in UB for "science is dogmatic" and meditate on it. My ethnic background has a LONG LONG LONG LONG LONG history of protecting REAL scientists from ecclesiastical authority - dating all the way back to Copernicus. "Global warming" is a POLITICAL argument. Which makes it insulting to both science AND REAL religion" - buzzword for the day - IRRELEVANT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Canada heat's up 2 degree's it does not affect me at all. Infact I welcome heat, my city is freagin cold for half the year.

 

hahah im joking but seriously guy's do you have any idea how many eskimo's and homeless people die each year from Global Coldness, we need to start heating things up here in Canada so we don't have any more of these death's.

 

hahah im just kidding, i don't mind the cold. Anywho does anyone want to talk about a different theory this one is getting kind of old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about these interesting theorie's and speculation's that urantia makes or that are connected to urantia. Like the Gene that regulate's brain size that appeared suddenly about 16 thousand year's ago. Or the theory that all blue eye'd people have common ancestor's. Or the Foxhall people. orrr about how urantia say's our larger bird's are the direct discendant's of dinasour's. Orrrr the supposed location of Atlantis/Eden in the Medditeranian. Orrrr Prevalence of Calcium in the universe. orrrr the Clay Tablet's of Sumeria. There is so many to get at....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks NUF for those thoughts. We appreciate your candor and deep understanding of the revelation.

 

I would like to encourage the motion that Mr. Boomshuka has introduced now as I think the spiritual value of our Political Debate may be expiring quickly.

 

Mr. Thomas will be taking an involuntary 30-day hiatus during which time I would like all to offer sincere prayers that he may start to focus his attention on more spiritual endeavors.

 

--the management

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would ask another question on this subject:

 

Why the angry emotional zealousness when anthropogenic climate change is questioned or refuted? Seems like the truth contained in a scientific theory should allow it to stand up to whatever scrutiny it is subject to.

 

The whole global warming thing has become something of a religion on the Left, replete with it's own dogma and adherants to that dogma. My brother, a serious believer in the gospel of global warming, landed all over me getting very nasty with me for watching the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.

 

How dare I question his dogma!!!

 

I told him I wanted to see both sides of the matter, and that perhaps he should keep an open mind, whereupon he snarled at me that I was the one with the closed mind! Wait, I'm the one with the closed mind, for wanting to hear both sides of it?????

 

I believe that global warming and all the politics surrounding it is a manufactured crisis foisted upon us all for the purposes of political and economic power

over us, such as in the carbon trading schemes and the continuing Federalization of environmental programs.

 

It is also a means of guaranteeing continued funding to scientists who sign onto it, for whom there is not funding if there is no crisis. Hence their hostility to any other view of the matter. Then there is the U.N., which is always seeking to expand it's power, which is why it created the IPCC in the first place.

 

The hostility of the political Left is motivated by their overpowering need to guilt-trip us all into opting into their political views by accusing us of destroying the planet.

 

a.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

127_12.gif

 

This table and chart suggests we should be spending much more time and research dollars trying to better understand and predict the oceans and the sun than on trying to model or study the impact of CO2 or spend billions or trillions trying to control it.

 

http://intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=127

 

Some basics:

 

rad%20budget.jpg

 

Figure 18: Globally averaged energy budget of the atmosphere. Figure from

http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/ceres/brochure/ based on data from Kiehl and Trenberth (1997).

 

a. From our sun arrives the radiation amount 342 W/m^2 (solar TSI, total solar irradiance, value 1368 W/m^2)

 

b. 31 percent (107 W/m^2) is reflected back into space by clouds and the surface of the earth.

 

c. 20 percent (67 W/m^2) of the incoming radiation is absorbed by our atmosphere.

 

d. 49 percent (168 W/m^2) is absorbed by the Earth surface as heat

 

e. so fart the radiation budget is 107 + 67 + 168 = 342 W/m^2

 

f. 390 W/m^2 is radiated by the surface on the infrared wavelengths. Of this 324 W/m^2 is reflected back to the earth.

 

g. On the Earth surface equilibrium is approached by vaporization

and convective processes, that do not radiate.

 

h. in the upper atmosphere equilibrium is approached as 195 W/m^2 (165 + 30) is radiated back into space.

 

The amount of solar energy absorbed depends both on the incoming irradiance and on the Earth’s reflective properties. If either of these changes then the temperature structure of the atmosphere-surface system tends to adjust to restore the equilibrium.

= = =

 

Last year I participated in a climate discussion on a Finnish forum. The text above is from this forum, and my own writing there.

 

The truth is that presently nobody can claim to fully understand those complicated processes, or model them in a reliable way. The mean temperature of Urantia has NOT increased for more than ten years, but CO2 is steadily increasing.

Edited by HSTa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also quite obvious that the UB contains lots of interesting information abut our atmosphere, climate and the long term development of these on our planet.

 

We might for instance mention the development of the carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in our atmosphere. I have seen some claims that the atmospheric CO2 is now higher than ever, but in a longer perspective this is certainly not true:

 

Urantia:

Page-660

950,000,000 years ago Urantia presents the picture of one great continent

of land and one large body of water, the Pacific Ocean. Volcanoes are still

widespread and earthquakes are both frequent and severe. Meteors continue to

bombard the earth, but they are diminishing in both frequency and size. The

atmosphere is clearing up, but the amount of carbon dioxide continues large.

The earth's crust is gradually stabilizing.

 

Page-662

Volcanic eruptions and earthquakes continued to diminish in frequency and

severity. The atmosphere was clearing of volcanic gases and water vapor, but

the percentage of carbon dioxide was still high.

 

Page-665

And it was from such seashores of the mild and equable climes of a later

age that primitive plant life found its way onto the land. There the high

degree of carbon in the atmosphere afforded the new land varieties of life

opportunity for speedy and luxuriant growth. Though this atmosphere was then

ideal for plant growth, it contained such a high degree of carbon dioxide that

no animal, much less man, could have lived on the face of the earth.

 

Scientist have reconstructed past atmospheric CO2 levels as follows:

 

co2%20x%20present.gif

 

"x present CO2"’ stands for times the present level of CO2 in our atmosphere. This level might have been more that 20 times the present level 500 million years ago.

 

The present (year 2009) CO2 level is about 387 parts per million (by volume) on Mauna Loa. Of this small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, about one third might be manmade (anthropogenic).

 

Much larger amounts of CO2 are dissolved in the oceans, and released from the oceans in a way that we don't fully understand. The main greenhouse gas is water vapor, and this water vapor might even control the release of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Edited by HSTa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite lib, Stephanie Miller, was covering global warming when the Blago scandal hit. She refused to cover the Blagojavic news, which was all over everywhere. And she still covered global warming instead. I just can’t believe that my favorite lib could think global warming more urgent news than Blago. So in order to get the Blago story I had to change the station on her. I realized that I was missing major news stories. Perhaps that’s Air America’s mission-distraction. I remember how much I loved Al Gore’s wonderful movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, but then I was heartbroken when I saw clips of him in congress asking for a carbon tax.

Edited by Adamite Woman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My favorite lib, Stephanie Miller, was covering global warming when the Blago scandal hit. She refused to cover the Blagojavic news, which was all over everywhere. And she still covered global warming instead. I just can’t believe that my favorite lib could think global warming more urgent news than Blago. So in order to get the Blago story I had to change the station on her. I realized that I was missing major news stories. Perhaps that’s Air America’s mission-distraction. I remember how much I loved Al Gore’s wonderful movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, but then I was heartbroken when I saw clips of him in congress asking for a carbon tax.

 

Al Gore and the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) won the 2007 Nobel Prize. IPCC chairman, the Indian Rajendra Pachauri, also attended the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Award ceremonies. You might see and hear the speech here:

 

http://www.empivot.com/watch.php?mdid=557

 

Al Gore for instance mentioned the Swedish scientist Svante Ahrenius who warned about global warming in the 1890's ( about 110 years ago) and invented the greenhouse gas expression for CO2.

 

Although people have been divided in believers and non-believers, this Nobel prize stimulated more research in this important matter!

 

But I don’t think we should expect some kind of immediate planetary emergency. Neither is there much point in acting boldly and decisively; because the energies driving the Earth climate are mostly far beyond our control, like the solar radiation, the continental drift and influences from the world oceans. Cosmic radiation and cosmic dust might be involved also.

 

The truth might be inconvenient, and famous people are often the subject of some jokes, like in this picture:

 

http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/adslfor/al...%20freesing.gif

 

The next year, 2008, the former President of Finland (1994–2000), Martti Ahtisaari, received the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Award. Ahtisaari received the prize on December 10, 2008 at Oslo City Hall in Norway.

= = =

 

In the following picture you might see that water vapor has much broader absorption bands in the electromagnetic spectrum, than CO2:

 

Atmospheric_Transmission.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UB Page-459:

While all adolescent suns do not pass through a pulsating stage, at least

not visibly, when looking out into space you may observe many of these younger

stars whose gigantic respiratory heaves require from two to seven days to

complete a cycle. Your own sun still carries a diminishing legacy of the

mighty upswellings of its younger days, but the period has lengthened from the

former three and one-half day pulsations to the present eleven and one-half

year sunspot cycles.

 

UB Page-655:

Today, your sun has achieved relative stability, but its eleven and

one-half year sunspot cycles betray that it was a variable star in its youth.

 

 

There has been much speculation about the influence of the solar activity and sunspot cycles on the climate.

An authority on sunspot cycles (K. Lassen) records that:

 

In about 1860 to 1910 the length of the solar sunspot cycle was close to 11.5 years!

 

Then the cycle period shortened, but the last cycle, no. 23, has been at least 12 years long.

 

= = =

(Reference: Friis-Christensen, E., and K. Lassen, Length of the solar

cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate,

Science, 254, 698-700, 1991

 

‘The red curve illustrates the solar activity, which is generally

increasing through an interval of 100 years, since the cycle length

has decreased from around 11.5 years to less than 10 years. ‘

 

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

 

‘It appears from the evidence that cycle no. 23 has not yet bottomed out and thus is at least 12 years long.’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you are saying about global warming being a normal sunspot cycle. You agree that Al Gore is pointing out inconvenient truth and that alligators really are being born without you-know-whats, but you don’t agree with the way that this truth is being capitalized for government revenue. I loved the documentary Endgame when Alex Jones was accusing David Rothschild of making money off global warming mania and Rothschild said that the ice caps on Mars were melting because Mars is closer to the sun. They add cleaning up the environment to the mix because we all know that our environment needs to be cleaned up, no doubt. And that’s all I got to say about that. It seems the more I say that global warming gives me writer’s block, the more global warming threads appear. HSTa must be your cyborg model. Thanks, HSTa. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand what you are saying about global warming being a normal sunspot cycle. You agree that Al Gore is pointing out inconvenient truth and that alligators really are being born without you-know-whats, but you don’t agree with the way that this truth is being capitalized for government revenue. I loved the documentary Endgame when Alex Jones was accusing David Rothschild of making money off global warming mania and Rothschild said that the ice caps on Mars were melting because Mars is closer to the sun. They add cleaning up the environment to the mix because we all know that our environment needs to be cleaned up, no doubt. And that’s all I got to say about that. It seems the more I say that global warming gives me writer’s block, the more global warming threads appear. HSTa must be your cyborg model. Thanks, HSTa. ;)

 

 

Yours was a quite truthful summary; I couldn’t have said it better myself.

 

I’m still interested to point out some of the connected facts found in the UB.

 

Ozone is another gas found in small amounts in our atmosphere. It is active and important in the other end of the solar radiation spectrum than CO2; see my previous picture.

 

Scientist today have approximately exactly the same opinion of the role of Ozone in the atmosphere as told in the UB:

 

Urantia:

Page-665

The earth's atmosphere is all but opaque to much of the solar radiation

at the extreme ultraviolet end of the spectrum. Most of these short wave

lengths are absorbed by a layer of ozone which exists throughout a level about

ten miles above the surface of the earth, and which extends spaceward for

another ten miles. The ozone permeating this region, at conditions prevailing

on the earth's surface, would make a layer only one tenth of an inch thick;

nevertheless, this relatively small and apparently insignificant amount of

ozone protects Urantia inhabitants from the excess of these dangerous and

destructive ultraviolet radiations present in sunlight. But were this ozone

layer just a trifle thicker, you would be deprived of the highly important and

health-giving ultraviolet rays which now reach the earth's surface, and which

are ancestral to one of the most essential of your vitamins.

Page-666

Your sun pours forth a veritable flood of death-dealing rays, and your

pleasant life on Urantia is due to the "fortuitous" influence of more than

two-score apparently accidental protective operations similar to the action of

this unique ozone layer.

 

Vitamin D3 is derived from animal sources and is made in the skin when 7-dehydrocholesterol reacts with UVB ultraviolet light at wavelengths between 270–300 nm, with peak synthesis occurring between 295-297 nm:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D

 

Lots of very important functions of vitamin D3 in the human body are known today.

 

Ozone (O3) is continually created an destroyed in the atmosphere by the action of sunlight. It is probably not so sensitive to various manmade chemicals as thought earlier.

 

Close to the surface of the Earth Ozone is highly toxic and it has a bad influence on both plants and animals, even I small concentrations.

 

Ozone is measured in Dobson units. The total atmospheric content of ozone is about 300 DU (Dobson units), equivalent to a layer of 3 mm at the surface pressure.

 

The so-called Ozone layer has a mean content of about 2.54 mm (’one tenth of an inch thick’), like the UB said (= 254 DU).

 

The UB information is amazingly accurate, see my picture below:

 

The ozone layer:

’exists throughout a level about

ten miles above the surface of the earth,

and which extends spaceward for

another ten miles.’ i.e. from about 16 to 32 km:

 

ozone-faq1.gif

 

Picture source:

http://kotisivu.dnainternet.net/adslfor/ozone_faq.txt

 

Some information about atmospheric ozone existed already in the 1930ies, but not much was certain.

 

The Dobson spectrophotometer, also known as Dobsonmeter, is the earliest instrument used to measure atmospheric Ozone. It was developed in 1924 by Gordon Dobson, and used for instance in Aroza, Switserand, see link:

 

http://www.iac.ethz.ch/en/research/chemie/...er/totozon.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear friends,

 

Can you tell me, is the following UB statement reliable (?) :

 

’The planetary atmosphere filters through to the earth about one

two-billionths of the sun's total light emanation. ’:

Page-665

2. THE URANTIA ATMOSPHERE

The planetary atmosphere filters through to the earth about one

two-billionths of the sun's total light emanation. If the light falling upon

North America were paid for at the rate of two cents per kilowatt-hour, the

annual light bill would be upward of 800 quadrillion dollars. Chicago's bill

for sunshine would amount to considerably over 100 million dollars a day. And

it should be remembered that you receive from the sun other forms of energy--

light is not the only solar contribution reaching your atmosphere. Vast solar

energies pour in upon Urantia embracing wave lengths ranging both above and

below the recognition range of human vision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear friends,

 

Can you tell me, is the following UB statement reliable (?) :

 

’The planetary atmosphere filters through to the earth about one

two-billionths of the sun's total light emanation. ’:

Page-665

 

Have you done the math already HSTA?

 

Wouldn't one have to know the total surface area and output of Monmatia, and the surface of one half of Urantia minus how much light hits the atmosphere as opposed to how much reaches the ground. My caluculator isn't that smart, but it would be interesting to hear a scientist like yourself opine on this revelation...

 

Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you done the math already HSTA?

 

Wouldn't one have to know the total surface area and output of Monmatia, and the surface of one half of Urantia minus how much light hits the atmosphere as opposed to how much reaches the ground. My caluculator isn't that smart, but it would be interesting to hear a scientist like yourself opine on this revelation...

 

Rick

 

Actually you might find the answer directly from Wikipedia:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radiation

 

Wikipedia (quotation): “Thus the Sun emits about two billion times the amount of radiation that is caught by Earth, in other words about 3.86×10^26 watts.[5]”:

 

The amount of radiation that is caught by Earth = P(Earth)

 

The sun emits about 2 billion times P(Earth) = P(Sun) = 3.86*10^14 TW

 

P(earth)= 3.86e14/2e9 = 193000 TW (TeraWatts)

 

This value is slightly more than the value given in the following source.

 

174000 TW:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_...and_consumption

 

= = =

 

We might compare this radiated solar power (174000 TW) to the total nuclear power consumption on the Earth in the year 2006, which was calculated to be (0.32 TW):

 

2808.1 TWh / 8766h = 0.32 TW

 

For instance the geothermal power reaching the Earth surface from the hot interior, is about 32 TW. This is less than 0.02 percent of the solar power radiation.

Edited by HSTa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Vast solar energies pour in upon Urantia embracing wave lengths ranging both above and

below the recognition range of human vision (665).”

 

“The great sanitary advance of this epoch came came from the dissemination of knowledge regarding the health-giving and disease destroying properties of sunlight (748).”

 

Speaking of smear campaigns against the sun, people let a brilliant marketing plan trick them into wearing sunglasses and too much sunscreen. There’s more than just vitamin D that we need from the sun and it cannot be supplemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...