Galactic warming

The planet Jupiter is undergoing climate change. I’m sure, in some way that we don’t fully understand, it is our fault! Global warming has gotten so bad it is now affecting the rest of the universe. We have gone from global warming to galactic warming. The government needs to do something about this immediately!

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • WebMonk

    Actually, it’s not a plant-wide warming at all. It’s a change in storms that is changing the distribution of heat in the planet. I realize it’s fun to take potshots at global warming fruitloops, but faulty claims hurt more than help. Here’s the explanation of what’s going on:

    “During this time, Jupiter’s equatorial region will warm up a whopping 18 degrees Fahrenheit (10 Celsius) and the planet will grow cooler near the poles.”

    “Unlike Earth, Jupiter’s equator is not much warmer than its poles, even though the equator receives more sunlight. That implies something is globally mixing the heat pretty effectively, Marcus explains.”

    “If you knock out a whole row of vortices, you stop all the mixing of heat at that latitude,” Marcus reasons. “This creates a big wall and prevents the transport of heat from the equator to the poles.”

    So, it’s not global/planet warming at all, just a shifting of climates, that will even back out in a couple decades. Trying to claim that is planet warming is worse than what global warming activists try to claim here on earth.

  • WebMonk

    Actually, it’s not a plant-wide warming at all. It’s a change in storms that is changing the distribution of heat in the planet. I realize it’s fun to take potshots at global warming fruitloops, but faulty claims hurt more than help. Here’s the explanation of what’s going on:

    “During this time, Jupiter’s equatorial region will warm up a whopping 18 degrees Fahrenheit (10 Celsius) and the planet will grow cooler near the poles.”

    “Unlike Earth, Jupiter’s equator is not much warmer than its poles, even though the equator receives more sunlight. That implies something is globally mixing the heat pretty effectively, Marcus explains.”

    “If you knock out a whole row of vortices, you stop all the mixing of heat at that latitude,” Marcus reasons. “This creates a big wall and prevents the transport of heat from the equator to the poles.”

    So, it’s not global/planet warming at all, just a shifting of climates, that will even back out in a couple decades. Trying to claim that is planet warming is worse than what global warming activists try to claim here on earth.

  • Bror Erickson

    Webmonk,
    If you click on the link Vieth has provided you will see that some people at NASA are claiming, not Vieth, but people at NASA are claiming it is large scale climate warming.
    I don’t know what article you have quoted here. But it seems even from that article, that at least some people are jumping to the conclusion that it is a planet wide warming. With that in mind laugh at a joke once in a while.

  • Bror Erickson

    Webmonk,
    If you click on the link Vieth has provided you will see that some people at NASA are claiming, not Vieth, but people at NASA are claiming it is large scale climate warming.
    I don’t know what article you have quoted here. But it seems even from that article, that at least some people are jumping to the conclusion that it is a planet wide warming. With that in mind laugh at a joke once in a while.

  • WebMonk

    Bror, reading comprehension is as important as reading. What part of this quote sounds like NASA is claiming large-scale climate warming?

    “Jupiter’s recent outbreak of red spots is likely related to large scale climate change as the gas giant planet is getting warmer near the equator.”

    NEAR THE EQUATOR.

    And if you follow the “climate change” link in the sentence, it tells you exactly what is meant: warmer at the equator, cooler at the poles. That’s where I got the quotes I put in the first comment.

    No one is “jumping to the conclusion that it is a planet wide warming” except maybe you. The scientists very specifically said it is NOT planet-wide. The articles very clearly said it is not “global warming” on Jupiter. It is a climate shift more similar to El Nino here, than to a global warming.

  • WebMonk

    Bror, reading comprehension is as important as reading. What part of this quote sounds like NASA is claiming large-scale climate warming?

    “Jupiter’s recent outbreak of red spots is likely related to large scale climate change as the gas giant planet is getting warmer near the equator.”

    NEAR THE EQUATOR.

    And if you follow the “climate change” link in the sentence, it tells you exactly what is meant: warmer at the equator, cooler at the poles. That’s where I got the quotes I put in the first comment.

    No one is “jumping to the conclusion that it is a planet wide warming” except maybe you. The scientists very specifically said it is NOT planet-wide. The articles very clearly said it is not “global warming” on Jupiter. It is a climate shift more similar to El Nino here, than to a global warming.

  • Bror Erickson

    Webmonk,
    Granted, meant to say change, not warming, but hey the joke still stands what ever is happening. The second article you suggested I link to says it is actually a global planet wide change.
    “This is a serious change,” he said. “It’s nice to have another laboratory to look at global climate change. Perhaps we can learn something.”
    Cooling or warming or change in some other manner, what ever, someone some where will probably try to say it is our fault. Again laugh at a joke.

  • Bror Erickson

    Webmonk,
    Granted, meant to say change, not warming, but hey the joke still stands what ever is happening. The second article you suggested I link to says it is actually a global planet wide change.
    “This is a serious change,” he said. “It’s nice to have another laboratory to look at global climate change. Perhaps we can learn something.”
    Cooling or warming or change in some other manner, what ever, someone some where will probably try to say it is our fault. Again laugh at a joke.

  • WebMonk

    I get the joke, I really do, but jokes like this that make the joker look dumb to anyone knowledgeable on the topic.

    Do Hitchens and Dawkins’ jokes about Christianity make them look knowledgeable or ridiculous to people who know about Christianity?

    Do jokes like these make you look knowledgeable or ridiculous to those who know something about global climate warming/change?

    I know, I know. This isn’t a forum on climate change. Who cares about accuracy. If they didn’t say something dumb, just pretend they did for the joke. ROTFLOL. Ha ha. LOL. Good one.

  • WebMonk

    I get the joke, I really do, but jokes like this that make the joker look dumb to anyone knowledgeable on the topic.

    Do Hitchens and Dawkins’ jokes about Christianity make them look knowledgeable or ridiculous to people who know about Christianity?

    Do jokes like these make you look knowledgeable or ridiculous to those who know something about global climate warming/change?

    I know, I know. This isn’t a forum on climate change. Who cares about accuracy. If they didn’t say something dumb, just pretend they did for the joke. ROTFLOL. Ha ha. LOL. Good one.

  • Don S

    Well, Webmonk, at least the scientists can look at Jupiter’s alleged warming dispassionately and on a global scale. I wish they could do the same here on earth.

    We’ve had no observed global warming in the past ten years, and the alleged total global warming in the past century is well under one degree. I say alleged because I don’t believe for a second that our worldwide climate data from 100 years ago is the least bit reliable. You can’t take data points from NYC and London and extrapolate them to the world, for the same reason you can’t do so for Jupiter. The earth’s climate patterns are complex, and the global climate as a whole must be considered. Do we have accurate, comprehensive data from every continent in the world (as well as strategically throughout the world’s oceans) from 100 years ago that we can compare current data to, or are we extrapolating, using those vaunted “computer models”, and then saying we are 100 percent sure that we are in the middle of an apocalyptic global warming episode, and that it is primarily due to excess CO2 introduced into the atmosphere by man? And what data do we have to support the notion that we can resolve this problem by reducing CO2 emissions going forward by a relatively small percentage (by, for example, using an “eco-shaped” water bottle, using reusable trash bags, and by reducing our gasoline consumption by 10%?). More computer models?

    We are being sold a bill of goods by our politicians and alleged scientists. Either the whole global climate issue is overblown, or we are doomed, because there is no way we can reasonably do anything about it if it is true.

    And I kid about the scientists looking at Jupiter dispassionately. They actually are trying to explain away a natural explanation for earth’s warming (sun activity) because it would ruin the storyline that man (and more specifically the U.S.) is destroying the earth all by his little self.

    In my theology, the old earth will ultimately be destroyed, but it will be God’s doing and in His timing, not in our’s, and it will be because of sins a lot more serious than driving an SUV.

  • Don S

    Well, Webmonk, at least the scientists can look at Jupiter’s alleged warming dispassionately and on a global scale. I wish they could do the same here on earth.

    We’ve had no observed global warming in the past ten years, and the alleged total global warming in the past century is well under one degree. I say alleged because I don’t believe for a second that our worldwide climate data from 100 years ago is the least bit reliable. You can’t take data points from NYC and London and extrapolate them to the world, for the same reason you can’t do so for Jupiter. The earth’s climate patterns are complex, and the global climate as a whole must be considered. Do we have accurate, comprehensive data from every continent in the world (as well as strategically throughout the world’s oceans) from 100 years ago that we can compare current data to, or are we extrapolating, using those vaunted “computer models”, and then saying we are 100 percent sure that we are in the middle of an apocalyptic global warming episode, and that it is primarily due to excess CO2 introduced into the atmosphere by man? And what data do we have to support the notion that we can resolve this problem by reducing CO2 emissions going forward by a relatively small percentage (by, for example, using an “eco-shaped” water bottle, using reusable trash bags, and by reducing our gasoline consumption by 10%?). More computer models?

    We are being sold a bill of goods by our politicians and alleged scientists. Either the whole global climate issue is overblown, or we are doomed, because there is no way we can reasonably do anything about it if it is true.

    And I kid about the scientists looking at Jupiter dispassionately. They actually are trying to explain away a natural explanation for earth’s warming (sun activity) because it would ruin the storyline that man (and more specifically the U.S.) is destroying the earth all by his little self.

    In my theology, the old earth will ultimately be destroyed, but it will be God’s doing and in His timing, not in our’s, and it will be because of sins a lot more serious than driving an SUV.

  • WebMonk

    DonS, now THAT is stuff to joke about! :^) The stupidity and ridiculousness of the basis for devastating global warming, and especially man-caused global warming, is wonderful fodder for lots of jokes!!

    I dunno about your idea that “They actually are trying to explain away a natural explanation for earth’s warming (sun activity),” since there’s none of that in the articles, but if anyone does try that, they will be worthy of a most excruciating excoriation and ridicule.

  • WebMonk

    DonS, now THAT is stuff to joke about! :^) The stupidity and ridiculousness of the basis for devastating global warming, and especially man-caused global warming, is wonderful fodder for lots of jokes!!

    I dunno about your idea that “They actually are trying to explain away a natural explanation for earth’s warming (sun activity),” since there’s none of that in the articles, but if anyone does try that, they will be worthy of a most excruciating excoriation and ridicule.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Dr. Veith, sometimes I wish you took science half as seriously as you do classical literature. I don’t mind a well-reasoned argument against global warming, but I doubt you’d tolerate such hyuk-hyuk-level reasoning in a discussion of, I don’t know, Beowulf. (“So … when Beowulf fights Grendel, like, where’s Hansel?*”)

    I suppose last winter also put the nail in the coffin for those still clinging to global warming. I mean, it got colder and stuff. Not warmer.

    *The answer, of course, is that he is still at the witch’s house after having stuck her head in the oven. The more important question is how this bears on the guest-host relationship.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Dr. Veith, sometimes I wish you took science half as seriously as you do classical literature. I don’t mind a well-reasoned argument against global warming, but I doubt you’d tolerate such hyuk-hyuk-level reasoning in a discussion of, I don’t know, Beowulf. (“So … when Beowulf fights Grendel, like, where’s Hansel?*”)

    I suppose last winter also put the nail in the coffin for those still clinging to global warming. I mean, it got colder and stuff. Not warmer.

    *The answer, of course, is that he is still at the witch’s house after having stuck her head in the oven. The more important question is how this bears on the guest-host relationship.

  • Bror Erickson

    Maybe Dr. vieth takes it just as seriously as the so called scientists who promolgate the sensationalist b.s. of global warming? Just a thought. No reason to take a silly argument seriously now.

  • Bror Erickson

    Maybe Dr. vieth takes it just as seriously as the so called scientists who promolgate the sensationalist b.s. of global warming? Just a thought. No reason to take a silly argument seriously now.

  • WebMonk

    Bror, um, there are a lot of scientists who do take the “sensationalist b.s. of global warming” seriously. They’re quite wrong, it’s becoming more obvious that they’re wrong, and many are changing their minds, but they do take it seriously.

    Your first sentence is absolutely right; Veith should take it seriously like they do.

  • WebMonk

    Bror, um, there are a lot of scientists who do take the “sensationalist b.s. of global warming” seriously. They’re quite wrong, it’s becoming more obvious that they’re wrong, and many are changing their minds, but they do take it seriously.

    Your first sentence is absolutely right; Veith should take it seriously like they do.

  • Bror Erickson

    Webmonk,
    It is not that they take global warming seriously. It is if they took science seriously in the first place, they wouldn’t be taking this global warming nonsense seriously.
    tODD was after Vieth for not taking science seriously. I was merely pointing out that he probably takes science as seriously as do the so called scientists promolgating this b.s. In fact I bet Vieth takes science more seriously, which is why he is apt to poke fun at the sensationalism surrounding global warming.

  • Bror Erickson

    Webmonk,
    It is not that they take global warming seriously. It is if they took science seriously in the first place, they wouldn’t be taking this global warming nonsense seriously.
    tODD was after Vieth for not taking science seriously. I was merely pointing out that he probably takes science as seriously as do the so called scientists promolgating this b.s. In fact I bet Vieth takes science more seriously, which is why he is apt to poke fun at the sensationalism surrounding global warming.

  • WebMonk

    Many scientists who promote global warming take science seriously too. Gore and his ilk aren’t scientists, and it’s easy to accuse all pro-warming scientists of playing fast and loose with science just because the movement’s current celebrity does.

    It’s also about as accurate as claiming all Christians are like Fred Phelps.

    There are respectable and serious scientists on the pro-warming side of the argument, and accusing them of not caring about science is very wrong, and probably violates all sorts of 8th commandment principles to boot. The “joke” made here is very much like the comparison that tODD made with Beowulf “joke”.

    There is plenty in the global-warming movement that deserves derision, but ridiculously inaccurate mocking and accusations aren’t helpful, and do harm to any sort credibility people have.

  • WebMonk

    Many scientists who promote global warming take science seriously too. Gore and his ilk aren’t scientists, and it’s easy to accuse all pro-warming scientists of playing fast and loose with science just because the movement’s current celebrity does.

    It’s also about as accurate as claiming all Christians are like Fred Phelps.

    There are respectable and serious scientists on the pro-warming side of the argument, and accusing them of not caring about science is very wrong, and probably violates all sorts of 8th commandment principles to boot. The “joke” made here is very much like the comparison that tODD made with Beowulf “joke”.

    There is plenty in the global-warming movement that deserves derision, but ridiculously inaccurate mocking and accusations aren’t helpful, and do harm to any sort credibility people have.

  • Don S

    If the scientific community had the guts to speak out and say the following, I would regard its credibility a lot higher:

    “The observations we have been able to make in our research do not support the hysterical claims of doom coming from certain elements of the environmental and political communities, who may have other motivations than scientific concern for some of their claims and warnings. However, we have noted what may be a slight warming trend worldwide over the past century, and there is some evidence that increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere may be at least partially responsible. We are conducting additional research to try to confirm questionable and incomplete climate data from 50-100 years ago, to determine what percentage of the CO2 increase may be due to manmade causes, and whether this increase may truly be a factor in the observed slight global warming trend. We are also increasing our efforts to study climate trends on an ongoing basis to confirm possible computer modeling scenarios concerning future climate change and its causes. There is little likelihood, short of triggering a worldwide recession and economic collapse, that there is anything which can be done in the next 20-30 years to reverse or significantly slow human-caused CO2 emissions. However, because of this concern, and worldwide energy shortage, we advocate the implementation of reasonable energy conservation measures and research and development of new sources of cleaner energy.”

    I believe the above statement would much more accurately express the actual state of the science behind current global warming theories, but is certainly not dramatic enough to fill the coffers of environmental groups, fund endless research for scientists willing to sell their souls for the next project, or suit the political agenda of the democrat party, so we will not see such a statement in the near future.

  • Don S

    If the scientific community had the guts to speak out and say the following, I would regard its credibility a lot higher:

    “The observations we have been able to make in our research do not support the hysterical claims of doom coming from certain elements of the environmental and political communities, who may have other motivations than scientific concern for some of their claims and warnings. However, we have noted what may be a slight warming trend worldwide over the past century, and there is some evidence that increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere may be at least partially responsible. We are conducting additional research to try to confirm questionable and incomplete climate data from 50-100 years ago, to determine what percentage of the CO2 increase may be due to manmade causes, and whether this increase may truly be a factor in the observed slight global warming trend. We are also increasing our efforts to study climate trends on an ongoing basis to confirm possible computer modeling scenarios concerning future climate change and its causes. There is little likelihood, short of triggering a worldwide recession and economic collapse, that there is anything which can be done in the next 20-30 years to reverse or significantly slow human-caused CO2 emissions. However, because of this concern, and worldwide energy shortage, we advocate the implementation of reasonable energy conservation measures and research and development of new sources of cleaner energy.”

    I believe the above statement would much more accurately express the actual state of the science behind current global warming theories, but is certainly not dramatic enough to fill the coffers of environmental groups, fund endless research for scientists willing to sell their souls for the next project, or suit the political agenda of the democrat party, so we will not see such a statement in the near future.

  • WebMonk

    Don, there are a few similar statements from individual scientists, but certainly not very many (yet).

    One reason that we aren’t getting more statements like the one you gave is that scientists are funded by non-scientists. Scientists REALLY don’t want to tick them off. It’s a matter of financial survival.

    I do know a couple pro-warming scientists, and they seriously believe what they profess and treat the science with fairness. They were MUCH less extreme than what is usually portrayed in the news, but still supported human-caused-warming.

    One was a science prof in college, really knew his stuff, and opened my eyes as to how there really were some fairly valid reasons to go with human-caused-warming. He has greatly moderated his views though over the last 10 years (especially from a couple articles of his I read from the early 90s), and would probably sign your statement above.

    While he has moved more toward the stance I happened to hold, he’s always been a reminder to me that not all the scientists who believe/believed in human-global-warming were stupid or liars.

    Thankfully, from what I can tell, many of them are either moving toward a much more accurately scientific position on the topic, or are becoming more comfortable in stating their positions.

    I don’t expect to see statements like that ever take over though. Like your last paragraph said, reasonable statements don’t generate enough money, news-interest, or political fervor to ever be promoted.

  • WebMonk

    Don, there are a few similar statements from individual scientists, but certainly not very many (yet).

    One reason that we aren’t getting more statements like the one you gave is that scientists are funded by non-scientists. Scientists REALLY don’t want to tick them off. It’s a matter of financial survival.

    I do know a couple pro-warming scientists, and they seriously believe what they profess and treat the science with fairness. They were MUCH less extreme than what is usually portrayed in the news, but still supported human-caused-warming.

    One was a science prof in college, really knew his stuff, and opened my eyes as to how there really were some fairly valid reasons to go with human-caused-warming. He has greatly moderated his views though over the last 10 years (especially from a couple articles of his I read from the early 90s), and would probably sign your statement above.

    While he has moved more toward the stance I happened to hold, he’s always been a reminder to me that not all the scientists who believe/believed in human-global-warming were stupid or liars.

    Thankfully, from what I can tell, many of them are either moving toward a much more accurately scientific position on the topic, or are becoming more comfortable in stating their positions.

    I don’t expect to see statements like that ever take over though. Like your last paragraph said, reasonable statements don’t generate enough money, news-interest, or political fervor to ever be promoted.

  • Don S

    WebMonk, I think we agree on this one. Hopefully, over time, cooler heads will prevail, and mainstream society will walk back from the hysteria currently gripping the world toward a more reasoned and open-minded posture about these issues. The key is to discredit and marginalize the environmental crazies that dominate the media and monopolize the discussion. I am hopeful that this current energy crisis will wake people up to what they have to look forward to if these CO2 reduction mandates really take hold. We will in short order be looking back with nostalgia on these days of “cheap” $4.00 gas!

  • Don S

    WebMonk, I think we agree on this one. Hopefully, over time, cooler heads will prevail, and mainstream society will walk back from the hysteria currently gripping the world toward a more reasoned and open-minded posture about these issues. The key is to discredit and marginalize the environmental crazies that dominate the media and monopolize the discussion. I am hopeful that this current energy crisis will wake people up to what they have to look forward to if these CO2 reduction mandates really take hold. We will in short order be looking back with nostalgia on these days of “cheap” $4.00 gas!

  • WebMonk

    LOL! I can just see myself in 40 years listening to my grandkids complain about gas costs. I’ll be able to amaze them with tales of gas that was “only” $4.00 per gallon!

    Actually, my fantasy is to have transportation that uses some sort of anti-gravity induced by some cool quantum physics effects that block/counter gravity without a constant stream of energy input. THAT would be the death-knell of oil dependence, but more importantly that would mean …

    FLYING CARS!!! Whoo hoo!!!!

  • WebMonk

    LOL! I can just see myself in 40 years listening to my grandkids complain about gas costs. I’ll be able to amaze them with tales of gas that was “only” $4.00 per gallon!

    Actually, my fantasy is to have transportation that uses some sort of anti-gravity induced by some cool quantum physics effects that block/counter gravity without a constant stream of energy input. THAT would be the death-knell of oil dependence, but more importantly that would mean …

    FLYING CARS!!! Whoo hoo!!!!

  • Don S

    That would be cool — especially here in Southern California! The thing is, $4.00 gas will bring a lot of technology research on alternative energy — the magic market at work. Bring it on!

  • Don S

    That would be cool — especially here in Southern California! The thing is, $4.00 gas will bring a lot of technology research on alternative energy — the magic market at work. Bring it on!


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X