james12

Well intrigued by this discussion I thought I would tackle these questions. it is certainly true that water vapor has a greater impact on temperature than carbon dioxide in the short term. But there are a couple of aspects to water vapor that make it less of a concern. First, the concentration of water vapor in the air is directly related to the temperature. As the temperature increases the amount of water vapor increases, and as it decreases so too does the water vapor. Second, water vapor stays only weeks in the atmosphere. It falls as rain or snow and then is added again during evaporation. In contrast, CO2 can remain for a century or more in the atmosphere. What's more CO2 creates a positive feedback loop by raising temperature which in turn increases water vapor in the air and so exacerbates global warming. Consider that for decades we have been arguing about whether earth is warming. We have thousands of temperature probes, satellites, etc. and yet we still debate. How is it then that with just a few satellites orbiting Mars/Venus we know these planets are warming? Do we really know what is going on there? Not only that, but you claim they are warming at the same rate as earth. Please provide evidence in support of such a claim. I don’t see how anyone could have such definitive information. I addressed a portion of this previously, but let me run through it more completely. CO2 and methane have been implicated in most climate changes in earth’s past. Ice ages have primarily been caused because of cyclical changes to the earth’s orbit, tilt, or wobble, known as Milankovitch cycles. As the oceans cool more CO2 is absorbed. This decreases CO2 in the atmosphere and allows more heat to escape into space creating an ice age. This process takes tens of thousands of years. However, this is not the case now. Our orbital and rotational cycles show that we should be cooling. However, we are heating. What’s more, it is not happening over 10,000 years but over a few centuries. The answer to this question is complex. For example, t is not completely clear how global warming combined with El Nino and La Nina conditions impact different areas of the earth. In some areas it appears to cause heat waves and in other areas more rain and hurricanes. On going research will need to uncover more of the exact effects. So let me just discuss effects on plants and animals. Global warming helps some plants and animals to grow, but it hurts others. As you have noted, warming and cooling of the earth has happened in the past. But the problem with the current trend has to do more with the speed of the change than the change itself. It takes many plants and animals a long time to adapt. As the earth warms some plants and animals cannot make the transition to warmer climates because they have not evolved to handle them. Because of this, many species will die. However, heat is not the only issue, as we pump more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere a fair portion of it is absorbed into the oceans and so are becoming more acidic. Coral have been found to be particularly susceptible to the acidity change. Coral support many species of plants and animals similar to rainforests on land. As it dies off, so too will these other living organisms whom depend on it to survive. Based on what I’ve read, it appears likely that global warming will ultimately cause earth’s life forms to be less diverse. On some level it is similar to other extinction periods. So, is this a huge deal? In my book it is. I don't agree with alarmists on either side but prefer to try and weigh the evidence. As to funding, I would say it’s a mixed bag. For instance companies who depend on fossil fuels for profit pay for research to contradict some scientific studies. While other research centers are funded by governments, universities, and private donors who may have something to benefit from global warming findings. From my perspective I don’t see a compelling case to suppose that the large majority of scientists who believe anthropomorphic global warming are trying to twist results to fit their agenda. The US is first in per capita emissions and will be for many years. So based on your statement we should be doing the most to curb greenhouse gas emissions of all people on earth, and yet we are not. Countries in Europe are much more proactive. But further, consider that many countries with the lowest per capita emissions are being impacted by our emissions without significantly contributing to the problem or without receiving any benefits from fossil fuel technology.

I'm doing this from a phone so let's see how it goes.... 1. The wavelength is not part of the visible light spectrum. The units are in recipricle centimeters ( for more information see https://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/virttxtjml/Spectrpy/InfraRed/infrared.htm. 2. C02 is not the line coming down but the first large hump. Same with the other gases. 3. They indicate radiation from greenhouse gases which reach the earth. So this would primarily be radiation which was initially reflected from the earth's surface before being reflected back to it 4. This doesn't go against any standard findings. Solar radiation initially enters earths atmosphere centered around the visable light spectrum. At these wavelengths greenhouse gases largely do not block it. However, after the radiation is reflected by the earths surface it enters the atmosphere in the IR range. This reflected light is blocked by the greenhouse gases which reflect a portion out to space and a portion back to earth. The graph shows the portion reflected back to earth from the greenhouse gases.

I'm doing this from a phone so let's see how it goes.... 1. The wavelength is not part of the visible light spectrum. The units are in recipricle centimeters ( for more information see https://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/virttxtjml/Spectrpy/InfraRed/infrared.htm. 2. C02 is not the line coming down but the first large hump. Same with the other gases. 3. They indicate radiation from greenhouse gases which reach the earth. So this would primarily be radiation which was initially reflected from the earth's surface before being reflected back to it 4. This doesn't go against any standard findings. Solar radiation initially enters earths atmosphere centered around the visable light spectrum. At these wavelengths greenhouse gases largely do not block it. However, after the radiation is reflected by the earths surface it enters the atmosphere in the IR range. This reflected light is blocked by the greenhouse gases which reflect a portion out to space and a portion back to earth. The graph shows the portion reflected back to earth from the greenhouse gases.

The graph does not deal with absorption coefficients. It is a graph of radiation in the IR range which reaches the earth. For this reason it is labeled green house gas radiation. It does not include solar radiation because solar radiation is short wave centered around the visable spectrum which is outside the range of the graph.

Your summation that temperature drives CO2 levels is too simplistic and ultimately in accurate. In the past ice ages have been caused by Milankovitch Cycles, in which changes to the orbit, tilt, or wobble of the earth cause the earth to begin a warming or cooling cycle. However, these orbital/rotational cycles cannot by themselves account for the temperature changes. Rather, as the earth begins to warm outgasing of CO2 from the oceans continues the cycle. In fact over 90% of the warming occurs after the CO2 increase.

Since I don't have enough time for every item, let me spend just a minute answering the above comment. I believe your contention here is that methane has a larger impact on global warming than CO2 because of it's absorptive and radiative properties and therefore should be the gas we address, not CO2. The problem here is that there is over 200 times more CO2 in the troposphere than Methane. This is because Methane only accounts for 9% of green house gas emissions (CO2 accounts for 82%), and because Methane only lasts 12 years in the atmosphere while Carbon Dioxide can last 100's to 1000's of years. Further, if you question the above, more direct evidence can be provided. Using high resolution FTIR Spectroscopy scientists can measure the percent of long wave radiation reaching the earth. This will give a direct indication of which gases have the greatest impact. Note also that the Suns radiation is centered around the visable spectrum and so is not much of a factor. After filtering for the effect of water vapor, CO2 has by far the largest impact. Methane (CH4) still has an impact but it is less significant.

I think we must recognize that politics is coming from both sides of the fence. But I do agree with you about reviewing the science. Now, I personally am Republican and lean Libertarian on many issues. I want freedom for people. But a capitalistic economy does not, by itself, deal well with externalities. In fact Milton Freedman, one of the great voices for freedom, once addressed the issue of pollution on the Phil Donahue show. He said: I agree with this statement. In fact, if I had much say in the matter I would push for a revenue neutral carbon tax to deal with pollution and global warming. The reason I like this option is that it allows Adam Smith's invisible hand to still influence the direction of the economy while not adding any net tax increase. In fact I like it even more because we could reduce capital gains and income taxes which might benefit the economy. I would also aim to remove subsidies and tax breaks from companies and special interests across the board.

I simply give it as evidence, not proof. But at some point the evidence continues to mount until we find ourselves being buried by it.

To some extent we all have faith in "experts". The only difference is you have faith in different "experts". Certainly you don't believe you yourself have a better understanding of all the issues than many researchers and scientists? First, the consensus for significant human caused global warming is not weak at all. In fact, I think the consensus against human caused global warming is the weak argument. For instance NASA's website says this: They go on to quote statements affirming the above from 18 scientific journals.

I think you discount the IPCC much too quickly. It evaluates studies carried out by thousands of researchers across the globe and tries to synthesize the results to help policy makers. It represents hundreds of researchers from dozens of countries nominated by government or non-government entities. I certainly do know of people who reject global warming, in fact, Donald Trump comes to mind... The sun is just one factor in the global climate (though a very important one). However, it does not account for the entire warming trend. In fact over the last 35 years there has been a slight cooling trend with regards to the sun. Below is a graph of this (see http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm)

In regards to global warming there are many factors that effect the earth's temperatures. These many factors no doubt do make the science more complex. Moreover, I'm sure on this forum I will not be able to provide all the science to change your mind. So my suggestion would be to investigate attribution studies on global warming. But maybe for some this graph can represent a start. The National Center for Atmospheric Research evaluated five different factors: volcanoes, sulfate aerosol pollution, solar activity, greenhouse gases, and ozone depletion. Each factor had a distinct influence. They attempted to model the current warming trend without accounting for human induced factors. The model could not reproduce our recent warming trend without including greenhouse gases. Let me just quickly comment on the politics of the issue... Unfortunately, politics is a significant player in the information we receive and our attitude to global warming. I certainly do agree that the left has tried to use global warming as an opportunity to gain more control over industry and individuals, just as the right has tried to distort the message on the other extreeme. However, in evaluating the issue it is critical to divorce the science from politics until evidence has been well evaluated. So many do not do so, and around and around we go carried by every wind of doctrine.

I have changed my tune on this issue recently. I think it is getting harder and harder to argue with scientific consensus on the matter of global warming. For example the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) has more strongly worded their summary statements over the years. Here are some examples: Further the rhetoric on the other side of the argument has changed from, "There is no global warming", to, "There is global warming but it is not caused by humans", until now we hear, "There is global warming and it is caused by humans, but our impact is negligible". At what point will republicans and big business acknowledge the significant impact of humans on global warming?

It is indeed our privilege to seek for, and obtain, revelation. Joseph Smith speaking in third person stated plainly, "God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what he will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them. …” (TPJS, p. 149). Of course there is a process to these things and we do not seek such experiences to consume it upon our lusts, but we should see a process unfolding in our lives. Nephi's examples is instructive. First, he cried unto the Lord, "and behold he [the Lord] did visit me, and did soften my heart that I did believe" (1 Ne 2:16). We don't know exactly what "visit me" means, but I suspect it was just a feeling of peace. Many members time and time again receive such a visit and feeling of peace. It is one of the most common personal revelations in the church. Second, Nephi cries to the Lord for his brothers and the Lord speaks to him (2 Ne 2:19). I may be wrong, but I suspect, that it was not an audible voice. Read Enos's words about the experience he had and note what manner the voice comes, "behold, the voice of the Lord came into my mind again, saying..." (Enos 1:10). A voice came to his mind. I believe this also happens in the church fairly regularly however some cannot well distinguish the voice of the Lord speaking in their minds and their own thoughts. They have not yet learned to "hear" his voice. Third, an angel visits Nephi and his brothers. However, the interesting thing here is that Laman and Lemuel do not care at all about the angel. I wonder if they even recognized that it was an angel of the Lord, because right after he departs Laman and Lemuel question what the angel said. Finally, Nephi sees the vision of the tree of life in which he is caught away in the Spirit of the Lord. This is a culmination of all the faith he has exercised in the Lord up to this point. Fewer can rend the veil as Nephi did. It takes discernment, confidence in the Lord, and a determination to follow him. But surely it is possible for any saint. The scriptures testify of it again and again. The brother of Jared traveled a similar spiritual path. After the he sees the Lord Moroni cannot contain himself. He testifies boldly and then gives us the Lord's words as he himself received them: Of this very scripture Elder Holland says: And so it is, and indeed must be. It is we who will not pierce the veil, and it is we who prevent the Lord from manifesting himself in various ways and means.

Here is a statement that roles around in my head from time to time in relation to this topic. I comes from Theodore M. Burton in General Conference many years ago. He referred to the following scripture, "Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers - for ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God" (D&C 86:8-9). Then made this point: In relation to this, on one occasion Brigham Young said: I've wondered about the above statements. Not particularly as it relates to males receiving the priesthood, but rather, me exercising and using priesthood and my blood relations. Is the interpretation of D&C 86:8-9 correct? If not, how should we interpret it? Is Brigham Young's statement wrong?

I've been eating cereal for 35 years, and for some reason I'm still alive and going strong. I don't think processed foods are the major issue in the word of wisdom.

Sure I'll give a few. Nephi says, "And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled. For, for this end was the law given: wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith: yet we keep the law because of the commandments" (2 Ne 25:24-25). Now typically we take this statement by Nephi and say Christ came to give us better rules and rituals and the old rules/rituals (ie Law of Moses) are done away. But we do not take Nephi's words far enough for all we have done is replaced old rules with new rules which we claim are better. But ultimately the very rules themselves must become dead unto us so that the spirit of the Lord may live in us. Or as Paul put it, "But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law" (Gal 5:18) Nephi continues, "Wherefore, we speak concerning the law that our children may know the deadness of the law; and they, by knowing the deadness of the law, may look forward unto that life which is in Christ, and know for what end the law was given. And after the law is fulfilled in Christ, that they need not harden their hearts against him when the law ought to be done away" (2 Ne 25:27). Let us not harden our hearts because we find that at some point the letter of the law must be done away in us. Please understand, this is not an argument to forget all the commandments, stop striving, or to do less than our duty. It is an acknowledgement that rules bind but the spirit gives life. It is a recognition that Christ is the culmination of the law and following his spirit will lead us right. Let me again point to definition. If by letter you simply mean all the words and commandments ever given then sure at any one time we will find ourselves obeying some written commandments while breaking some others. As Joseph Smith said, "That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not kill'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.' This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed" (Personal Writings of Joseph Smith p. 507-509). So, Nephi can kill Laban and follow some commandments and so we could say that he was following the letter of the law. But this is not the sense in which Paul talks about the letter/spirit of the law and in this conversation we would do well not to confuse written commandments with the letter of the law as defined by Paul. To further this point consider this, if the Law of Moses contains the two commandments upon which all others are based as you have noted; then according to your logic the Law of Moses cannot be done away. For it contains within it these supreme laws. If this is the case how then does what Nephi says, and what Paul says about doing away with the law make any sense?

Any action which is not done willingly, with real intent, and according to the spirit of the Lord follows the letter of the law. It does not matter if the commandment can be written in words. If you will consider what you have said you will see that even the Law of Moses does not follow your definition of letter of the law. But let me comment more to Anddenex on this matter since his question is more to this point.

Hi Anddenex, I think contrast is not the ideal word. They are not polar opposites. Generally one can follow both the letter and spirit of the law, in fact this should be the normal situation should it not? After all the letter is meant to lead us to the spirit of the law, so I have nothing against the letter. But if were not careful we may lose the spirit of the law and simply follow the letter of it. So at some point we must come to the spirit of the law and then it will not mater about the letter of the law for the spirit of the law encompasses it. I'm not sure I understand your point about Nephi, maybe you can further explain. However, I would say that the letter of the law is designed to compliment the spirit of the law, not the other way around.

Paul, who I urge you to consider again in the wider sense of which I discussed, addressed this very point. He says, "What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet." (Romans 7:7 NRSV). Before we are experts in the spirit, the law teaches us about right and wrong (Paul would say it is our school master to bring us to Christ). It gives us guidelines on our behavior so we can start to feel the spirit and distinguish good from evil. However, once we can recognize the spirit in all it's forms we do not need the specifics. This is not ignoring the law, rather it is fulfilling the law in every way shape and form. And it is not, living in a more lax fashion but in a more exact one as Elder Maxwell stated.

when talking about the letter and spirit of the law Paul is the authority on the subject so I disagree that we should push Paul into obsolescence. I also disagree with your narrow interpretation of Paul's words. Certainly he often referred to the law of Moses but his words are of much wider application. To not see this misses an important truth about how to live the gospel. I could also point to Nephi and Mormon/Moroni who talk about living the spirit of the law. So again by definition the letter is in contrast to the spirit of the law and an important distinction is lost when the two are mistakenly defined as the same term.

I love the quote by Elder Maxwell and agree with it entirely. However, I'm not sure where the second statement came from and do not believe it follows what Elder Maxwell said.

Your post and a few others are confusing the definition of letter and spirit of the law. As defined by Paul the two take different paths. For example he said, "[God] who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life" (2 Cor 3:6). The letter killeth. Why? Because it is about exact rules and regulations which have no heart in them. In the strict sense of the term, the letter of the law is about following specific commandments with unwavering exactness. So if Nephi followed the letter of the law he would never have killed Laban. If Abraham followed the letter of the law only he would never have taken his son Isaac up into the mountain to be sacrificed. If the Savior himself had followed the letter of the law he would never have allowed himself to knowingly be killed. Commandments like, "love the Lord your God with all your heart might mind and strength" do not even compute for one who follows the letter of the law only. Why? Because by definition a strict letter of the law person cannot even understand the spirit of love and its various nuances. A letter of the law person needs tangible acts to perform and specific rules to follow. Thus you may say something like, "nurse your neighbor to health when he is sick" but simply saying "love your neighbor" is way too vague. Now of course, there are no people who entirely live the letter of the law, but let's not confuse the definition and say that to live the letter of the law is to live the spirit of it. No. The two lead to completely different results. One brings life, the other death.

There is confusion here between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. See my above distinction. The letter of the law can only contain a small portion of the spirit of the law. The letter of the law may try to define how we must act, but it cannot define every point. Now you may say that some statement like, "always do good" is the letter of the law but such a statement is meaningless to one who only lives the letter of the law for they do not even know what "good" is.

First, let me make a distinction about the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law. The letter of the law contains well defined rules, commandments, and rituals. If we live the letter of then we must obey all the rules for if we fail to live one commandment we have broken the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is different. It looks at the intent of the letter and thus contains the spirit of what the letter points to. So, regarding your question as to whether it is just as serious to break the spirit of the law as the letter of the law, I would conclude that it is more serious to break the spirit of the law than the letter of the law. In fact, I would go so far as to say that ultimately the spirit of the law is what matters. The letter of the law is just a school master to lead us to the spirit. As to the WoW example you bring up, the spirit of the law certainly does not mandate that we must avoid caffeine. In fact, stating that it does defines the letter of the law, not the spirit of it.

I always like thoughts like these. Consider these questions. 1. How is it that there are children in the eternal state? Aren't babies a condition of mortality and all spirits mature? 2. How can there be growth like we have here, because on this earth our knowledge is hidden from us, but such is not the case in the eternities.