Our awesome God!

Our God is an awesome God.  A God of power and majesty!

Science tells us about the events that have caused the world to be the way it is today. I believe the things that science tells us. Geology, physics, cosmology, biology. I understand them. I accept the evidence and the conclusions. The Bible story of creation, I do not believe.  They are the tales of people who, long ago, did not know how the universe works. They are simplistic explanations.  However, none of these facts threaten God.  To me, what science reveals actually magnifies the power of our awesome God.  Our God is not a man working day by day to create a single planet in just six days and, in doing so, becoming so exhausted that he has to rest for the seventh.

There are so many things that have to be just right for us to exist and I think it unreasonable to attribute these to blind chance.

Firstly we live in a universe where the laws of physics allow complex matter to exist.  Change just a few of the basic constants of the laws our universe follows and energy could not give rise to matter or, if it did, it would not be the matter that makes the universe we see. Alter the power of gravity slightly and there would be no condensation of matter into stars. The universe would be filled with simple matter, floating in the void.  We are made of star dust, every single one of us. Without stars there would be no complex atoms that make up the molecules of everything from the atmosphere, to bacteria, to mice, to men. It is within the nuclear furnace of stars that our constituent atoms were made.  Even if gravity was the same, change the energies of the constituents of atoms and nuclear fusion would not occur. We would have condensed matter forming giant blobs. Black holes travelling through space, devouring the rest of the matter that did exist. Without the laws of physics, as they exist, no nuclear fusion means no complex atoms, means no life, no us.

We have observed planets around other stars,  there is no law that says that planets should be ordered as they are in our solar system: Rocky inner planets with massive gaseous outer planets. Other systems have things the other way around, with massive planets, larger than Jupiter, orbiting their stars so closely as to be boiling hot, instead of being out in the cold as our Jupiter is.  Our beautiful Earth is a Goldilocks planet.  Like baby bear's porridge, it is just right.

Complex life depends upon water.  Despite what science fiction writers have said, that statement isn't just a lack of imagination. It is a fact.  It is possible that lifelike processes could occur in other chemical media but other substances tend to liquify at much lower or higher temperatures than water. At lower temperatures chemistry itself slows down.  The available energy is much less than at the temperature at which water is liquid. Some form of life might exist in very low temperatures but it would progress so slowly that it would not become advanced in the period that the universe has existed.  At too high a temperature chemical bonds are too unstable. A living being has to be able to maintain its own integrity and be able to pass on information to the next generation.  Higher temperatures make this far less likely to happen.  Heat is energy.  Make bonds too energetic and they are unstable.

So, life needs liquid water. Water is only liquid at a short range of temperatures.  Too low and it freezes into a solid, in which chemical reactions are too slow.  Too high and water vapourises. No longer liquid, it can not be the medium in which chemical reactions occur.  Our Earth is in just the right place to maintain liquid water on most of the surface. Any closer to the sun and the seas would boil. Any further out and they would solidify.

Our planet is just the right size too.  If the Earth was smaller then its gravitational field would not be strong enough to hold on to an atmosphere.    Unless they are at absolute zero (-460F) all molecules are in motion.  High up in the atmosphere fast moving molecules can reach escape velocity and shoot off into space.   Escape velocity is the speed at which something has to travel in order to leave a planet. That speed depends on the gravity of an object, which depends on its mass.  A smaller planet, composed of the same elements as the Earth, would have a lower mass, a lower gravitational field and, therefore, a lower escape velocity.  It's atmosphere would boil away. Just as that of Mars did.   A planet could have the same mass as the Earth and be smaller but that would mean that it would have to be composed of different materials. If it only contained the heavier elements then it would not contain those required for complex life.  A planet with a larger mass than the Earth has a greater gravity.  It will, therefore, accumulate a larger atmosphere, like the familiar gas giants of our own solar system. This will include the heavier gasses like Carbon dioxide.  Such a planet would have a higher greenhouse effect and thus higher surface temperatures such as those found on our sister planet Venus.  Geologists also theorise that a rocky planet, larger planet than the Earth, would have too thick and rigid a crust to allow plate techtonics.  With no wandering, colliding plates there would be no mountain building, no erosion and complex chemical interactions between the materials of the crust and the atmosphere. Such a planet would not only have greater zoning of elements into layers within its rocky body but also rock and atmosphere would be separated by ocean.

Our planet has just the right amount of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to make Earth habitable for complex living things such as ourselves.  Much more and the Earth would experience a run-away warming, similar to Venus. Much less and we would enter an ice age.

The Earth's orbit is virtually (but not quite) a perfect circle around the sun. This is true of most of the planets in our solar system.  Mercury is the exception.  Orbital eccentricity is measured on a scale of 0 to 1. With 0 being a perfect circle. That is, at all times of the year a planet with an orbital eccentricity of 0, is the same distance from its star.  The Earth's eccentricity is 0.017. That of Mercury 0.206.  Of the 1,000 or so planets detected outside our solar system, the large majority have much more eccentric orbits, many with eccentricities greater than 0.3.  This means that the temperature on the planet's surface would vary greatly between closest and furthest approach. Summers would be incredibly hot and winters terribly cold.  Life, particularly complex life, would have a tough time on such a planet.

Jupiter is in just the right place and acts as the guardian of the Earth.  In the majority of the other solar systems where planets have been discovered, the large gas giants are close to their star.  They zip around it in a few days rather than the 12 Earth years that Jupiter takes to go around our sun.  In its distant orbit, Jupiter acts a gatekeeper. There are all sorts of giant lumps of rock and ice travelling around space at high speeds. If they reach the inner solar system then they can hit the Earth.  Some do get through but most that do are small.  The majority of the large rocks out there get picked up by the massive gravitational pull of Jupiter and destroyed long before they threaten us.  The Earth has been hit many times.  However, it would be much worse without the protection of Jupiter. Constant bombardment with asteroids that rework the surface of a planet, is not conducive to the continuation of life on Earth.

I can not believe that all these things are mere chance.  One or two occurring together could be coincidence.  I therefore believe that, taking all these things together,  it is reasonable to conclude that we exist because our place in the universe was deliberately chosen for us, by our amazing God.

Climate change\Global warming Denier Myth Busting 2. Attempting to spread truth.

"Global warming is a recent hoax, a con trick, designed by lying climatologists to get funding." bleat the deniers.

Not so and any such accusation is the result of ignorance or deliberate deceit.

Any rational study of the historical evidence shows a growing worry, about the influence of CO2, among people who had no vested interest in over-hyping the problem:

1896 Svante Arrhenius (1859–1927), Swedish physical chemist and 1903 Nobel laureate, publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2.

1938 English engineer Guy Callendar argues that CO2 greenhouse global warming is underway. Published 10 major scientific articles, and 25 shorter ones, between 1938 and 1964 on global warming, infra-red radiation and anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

1956 Canadian Gilbert Plass calculates that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have a significant effect on the radiation balance.

1957 American Roger Revelle finds that CO2 produced by humans will not be readily absorbed by the oceans.

1960 Charles Keeling accurately measures CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere and detects an annual rise.

1963 Calculations by Fritz Möller suggest that feedback with water vapor could make the climate acutely sensitive to changes in CO2 level.

Same year meeting on “Implications of Rising Carbon Dioxide Content of the Atmosphere” was convened by the private Conservation Foundation.

1965 U.S. President’s Science Advisory Committee reported that “By the year 2000 the increase in atmospheric CO ... may be sufficient
to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate...”

1970 Massachusetts Institute of Technology study on
“Man’s Impact on the Global Environment,” suggested that greenhouse warming might bring “widespread droughts, changes of the ocean level, and so forth,”

1977 report on “Energy and Climate” from a panel of geophysicists
convened by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences stated there would be
“significant effects in the geographic extent and location of important commercial fisheries... marine ecosystems might be seriously disrupted.” Stresses on the polar ice caps might lead to a surge of ice into the sea, bringing a “rise in sea level of about 4 meters within 300 years.”

1983 study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, studied sea-level rise. The experts concluded that by the end of the 21st century they “could confidently expect major coastal impacts, including shoreline retreat... flooding, saltwater intrusion, and various economic effects.”

Such concerns accelerated during the 80s, resulting in the formation of the IPCC. Their conclusions were difficult to reach and based on a vast array of data.

A conclusion that the observed warming is the result of human induced modification of the atmosphere is a rational one, based on the work of generations of scientists. That does not logically indicate that it is the correct conclusion, since not all evidence is available at all times, but it is a rational conclusion given the available evidence. That is how science works. Any accusation of deliberate, wide-spread conspiracy to deceive is irrational and either the result of historical ignorance or deceit.

Myth busting: Deniers and the phrase 'Climate Change'.

"Lefties have had to change the name from Global Warming, to Climate Change since it hasn't warmed since 1998. Why would they do that if they weren't up to no good?". Such claims we hear the deniers cry. As with the fact that warming has not actually stopped (but rather slowed) this statement is simply untrue. Leaving aside the obvious fact that the very organization that the ignorant constantly criticize is called the IPCC (CC=Climate CHANGE!) and was founded in 1988 (That's ten years before the supposed halt to warming), there are many other references to the actual phrase, or near enough, "Climate Change" that long predate the term global warming. When Climate Change is used in the 1950's, it is usually in terms of warming.

There simply has been no great change in the interchangeable usage of both the terms "Global Warming" and "Climate Change". Deniers who use this argument are one of: stupid, ignorant or liars.

These are the references I found in an hour with my friend Google:

 1916 Hartford Courant "FOSSIL ROCKS IN CANADA STUDIED: Remains of Earliest Animal Life Found SCIENTISTS SPEND MONTHS IN NORTH Measurement of Ice Flow Shows Climate Change."

1937 Miami News 1937 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=13&ved=0CDQQqQIwAjgK&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnewspapers%3Fid%3DiMYuAAAAIBAJ%26sjid%3DVNQFAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D6066%2C4768002%26dq%3Dclimate-change%26hl%3Den&ei=WY9hUpL2LePkyQG-w4GwCQ&usg=AFQjCNEWPyutlE0-LwiE8H_UiaH2n8thDw&sig2=PcSVRsaKACCgp3dObLlwGQ&bvm=bv.54176721,d.aWc&cad=rja

1939 Christian Science Monitor "World Climate Getting Warmer, and it's not the humidity. Although not a part of the climate change evidence, the world s coldest and hottest figures may be involved in the change." http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/csmonitor_historic/doc/515570988.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:AI&type=historic&date=Nov%207,%201939&author=&pub=Christian%20Science%20Monitor&edition=&startpage=&desc=World%20Climate%20Getting%20Warmer%20--And%20It%27s%20Not%20the%20Humidity

1952 Los Angeles times (Archive) "Weather Expert Finds Little Climate Change"

1953 Advert in the Spokesman Review http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=slsVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=LeYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1951,3695705&dq=climate-change

Dec 2, 1955 The Hartford Courant "Climate Change Seen As Hurricane Cause"

1956 "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change" GILBERT N. PLASS (The Johns Hopkins University)

1956 New York Times "Pines 4,000 Years Old Found in California; Oldest Things Alive, Experts Say After Count of Rings 4,000-YEAR TREES GROWING IN WEST Response To Climate Change Dry and wet Alternation"

1958 Education documentary "Unchained Goddess" refers to climate change.

1958 New York times "Science In Review: Antarctica, preserved for research" refers to the phrase "climate Change" http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F1061FFF355F13728EDDA80994DD405B8889F1D3

1961 Geography "LAMB, HH. "Atmospheric Circulation, Climate and Climatic Variations." 46.3 (1961): 208-222.

1962 New York Times "Science Notes: Powerful Scope; ION Microscope - Climate Study.  In an effort to ferret Out clues to the nature and causes of climate change, " http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50817FD3B551A7B93C5A8178DD85F468685F9

1971 Geological Society of America Bulletin 82.10 (1971): 2741-2754. Kent, Dennis, N. D OPDYKE, and Maurice Ewing. "Climate change in the North Pacific using ice-rafted detritus as a climatic indicator."

1972 Palm Beach Post "Greenland Ice Study" contains the phrase Climate Change http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=22&ved=0CC0QqQIwATgU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnewspapers%3Fid%3DiaM1AAAAIBAJ%26sjid%3DILcFAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D912%2C3895668%26dq%3Dclimate-change%26hl%3Den&ei=2Y9hUu_JAoGGyAHUt4GQAw&usg=AFQjCNFYzFmgNI5yS2ObQyWDsb0ZBDTAjA&sig2=B989zZbFHET3YJ7Q8aQLJg&bvm=bv.54176721,d.aWc&cad=rja

1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?"

1976 Gadsden times "climate Change worries Soviets" http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=48&ved=0CEQQqQIwBzgo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnewspapers%3Fid%3DcJdGAAAAIBAJ%26sjid%3DoP0MAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D2855%2C1701489%26dq%3Dclimate-change%26hl%3Den&ei=C5JhUuCLI87lygHgm4GQAw&usg=AFQjCNH_1mYAcWZ8BMcSeiRI_ni9sYFlOA&sig2=oqwsd19vRTkGnXLPqdXO7A&bvm=bv.54176721,bs.1,d.aWc&cad=rja

1977 The Journal "Climatic Change" established.

1977 Deseret News http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=3&ved=0CDgQqQIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnewspapers%3Fid%3DSMdSAAAAIBAJ%26sjid%3DLX4DAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D4384%2C5842345%26dq%3Dclimate-change%26hl%3Den&ei=hI5hUsySGaWzyAH95oGoAQ&usg=AFQjCNEubvXthxbkNVgu4N2_1j2vnaaSbw&sig2=VKWLut_NnqTP0VToFNiqBw&bvm=bv.54176721,d.aWc&cad=rja

1977 Deseret News "Great Lakes to Shrink Says botanist" http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=70&ved=0CEcQqQIwCTg8&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnewspapers%3Fid%3DlWVTAAAAIBAJ%26sjid%3DnYUDAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D7097%2C5753233%26dq%3Dclimate-change%26hl%3Den&ei=jJJhUvekCaWGyAGS8IGYDA&usg=AFQjCNE9Q5yGM_GVKGC9s9NI0NIIcfE_5A&sig2=ICW5mtfyBbLp2VSUFfOoFQ&bvm=bv.54176721,bs.1,d.aWc&cad=rja

1978 "Scientists: Earth may be a desert by the year 2025" uses the phrase "climate change" https://www.google.com/url?url=http://news.google.com/newspapers%3Fid%3D2DpVAAAAIBAJ%26sjid%3Dyz0NAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D6602,6834609%26dq%3Dclimate-change%26hl%3Den&rct=j&sa=X&ei=Z5NhUs_7L-jhyQHTtYCoCw&ved=0CD4Q-AsoADAGOEY&q=climate-change&usg=AFQjCNFynH6Vu2CtazKmQGsHSB2nekoErw&cad=rja

1979 Gadsden Times "Scientists Warn of Drastic Climate Change". http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=21&ved=0CCsQqQIwADgU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnewspapers%3Fid%3Dm6QfAAAAIBAJ%26sjid%3DLtYEAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D2526%2C1052831%26dq%3Dclimate-change%26hl%3Den&ei=2Y9hUu_JAoGGyAHUt4GQAw&usg=AFQjCNF8Njd186ABF1tws-ZiFgJPvafaYw&sig2=XbFQwT3F5t6vZ62oW_tPsg&bvm=bv.54176721,d.aWc&cad=rja

1979 New York Times "worldwide Errort is proposed to Study climtae and its impact" Contains the phrase "climate Change" http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=89&cad=rja&ved=0CE8QqQIwCDhQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fselect.nytimes.com%2Fgst%2Fabstract.html%3Fres%3DF20D10FC3A5D12728DDDAA0994DA405B898BF1D3&ei=KpRhUvnpAaGwygGbj4DQCg&usg=AFQjCNGJQxG8FmAL351JtlaDxgeepYIyLA&sig2=3o0pGxelxXUobo-ht5j5bA

1980 Bangor Daily News http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=4&ved=0CDwQqQIwAw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnewspapers%3Fid%3DAXg-AAAAIBAJ%26sjid%3DtVkMAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D1088%2C1955014%26dq%3Dclimate-change%26hl%3Den&ei=hI5hUsySGaWzyAH95oGoAQ&usg=AFQjCNFgs3_HjedDtWgX23a8jl1emHYo_Q&sig2=tAf_6qgprkykGrjdiNgTdg&bvm=bv.54176721,d.aWc&cad=rja

1980 Journal of Atmospheric Sciences " On the Distribution of Climate Change Resulting from an Increase in CO2 Content of the Atmosphere."

1980 Science "Detecting Climate Change due to Increasing Carbon Dioxide"

1981 "Climate change and society: consequences of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide" Barnes & Noble.

1984 Technical Report: "Response of unmanaged forests to CO2-induced climate change: available information, initial tests and data requirements" Solomon, Allen M., et al. Response of unmanaged forests to CO2-induced climate change: Available information, initial tests and data requirements. No. N-85-21817; TR-009. Oak Ridge National Lab., TN (USA), 1984.

1985 Journal of Geophysical Research "Trace gas trends and their potential role in climate change"

1987 Journal 'Climate' "Testing for Climate Change: An Application of the Two-Phase Regression Model"

1988 23 June  U.S. Senate, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, "Greenhouse Effect and Global Climate Change" 100th Cong., 1st sess.,

1988 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

1988 - Boston Globe "WORLD FOOD SUPPLY IN PERIL, GROUP WARNS" contains "climate change" http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston/doc/294498109.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Oct%202,%201988&author=Dianne%20Dumanoski,%20Globe%20Staff&pub=Boston%20Globe%20%28pre-1997%20Fulltext%29&edition=&startpage=&desc=WORLD%20FOOD%20SUPPLY%20IN%20PERIL,%20GROUP%20WARNS

1988 Nature "Response of Northern forests to CO2 induced climate change. Vol 334
 
1995 - Influence of plants on climate probably more dramatic than previously thought" Mentions the phrase. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=100&ved=0CFgQqQIwCTha&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.google.com%2Fnewspapers%3Fid%3DqxIxAAAAIBAJ%26sjid%3DEOAFAAAAIBAJ%26pg%3D4910%2C3207991%26dq%3Dclimate-change%26hl%3Den&ei=EZlhUorXGuqmyQHwyYHYCA&usg=AFQjCNFDvv9wmyiWBEwWH5SuEOz1L8JpEA&sig2=1JpDFJRklm6KVFwDGhCEjQ&bvm=bv.54934254,d.aWc&cad=rja

1997 Time Magazine "Climate Change Summit - turning down the heat" http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,987564,00.html