Various gases can be shown in the laboratory to have a potential to produce a so-called greenhouse effect. They absorb and re-emit certain types of light (=heat) radiation. Theoretically, these gases, if present in the atmosphere, can influence global temperatures.

'Test tube' observations relating to climate change can go little farther than this. The earth's atmosphere is a vast and extremely complex system, defying reduction to simple formulae.

Climate theory therefore relies heavily upon deductions from history and observation of other planets. It is currently hobbled by deficiencies in our understanding of, amongst other things:

the chemistry of the myriad and mysterious processes in our atmosphere and biosphere;

the physics of rain, hail and snow;

the physics of cloud formation;

the part played by cosmic radiation (subatomic particles from Space);

the part played by the sun's far-reaching electro-magnetic radiation, including its possible effects on cosmic rays and on ....the outer zones of the earth's atmosphere;

the cause and total effects of the earth's magnetic field ; and

the part played by the oceans -- which absorb atmospheric gases in varying concentrations.

One example of the complexity and obscurity with which climate research is hobbled, is cloud formation. The major natural greenhouse gases, in order of the theoretical effect they currently have on our atmosphere, is: water (as water vapour); carbon dioxide (CO2); methane (CH4); ozone; nitrous oxide. Water vapour is the major component of our atmospheric greenhouse gases; it is present everywhere above the earth; it can form into cloud; cloud during the day cools the earth, but cloud at night warms the earth; changes in the amount of cloud over the earth can change global temperature; the precise subatomic (or quantum) processes of cloud formation are as yet only dimly perceived. Will an increase in water vapour -- the main greenhouse gas -- warm the earth, or generate more day-time cloud and not warm the earth? Do cosmic rays, or other atmospheric gases, play any part in the as yet mysterious processes of cloud and rain formation?

As an aside on the topic of clouds -- Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect. (Mars, like Venus, has a predominantly CO2 atmosphere, but does not suffer runaway greenhouse heating, presumably because its atmosphere is thin.) Theoretically, it is only by a quirk of nature that Venus is not an ice-box rather than an oven. If that planet's CO2 had frozen into silvery dry-ice clouds, rather than remaining gaseous, the sun's heat would mostly be reflected. The planet would have suffered runaway freezing.

The geologic record of climate change is no better than the physics and chemistry. Once the dateable ice cores run out -- their record is insignificant in geologic terms -- there is no known reliable record of past atmospheric composition. Ice and snow are poor candidates for the fossil record. The atmosphere itself, incorporated into rocks that form in contact with it, is a better candidate: but when one considers the ease with which components of the atmosphere such as water, or ozone or nitrous oxide can react with or bond into the minerals that make up rocks -- how accurate a record of a past atmospheric composition can we expect to obtain from rocks? True, we have a dozen or so meteorites believed to have been thrown here from Mars, mostly on the basis of similarity between incorporated gases and Mars' atmosphere: but this similarity has more to do with isotopic tracers than overall bulk composition. Is it possible for accurate samples of our past atmosphere to be extracted from rocks? Prospects do not appear hopeful.. One ray of hope - as in the case of the Mars meteorites - lies in the fact that some aspects of atmospheric chemistry - such as isotope ratios- theoretically can be preserved in atmospheric gases incorporated in rock, and isotope ratios in, say, atmospheric oxygen, do vary according to temperature, latitude, altitude, and such-like variables. They are influenced by atmospheric temperature. Other rays of hope lie in observations of changes in the physical characteristics of some plants and animals in response to environmental factors such as carbon dioxide concentration, and temperature. The fossil remains of such environmentally sensitive organisms provide clues regarding past atmospheric carbon, and atmospheric temperature. Indicators such as these enable fleeting, fragmentary glimpses of past climates and past atmospheres. They cannot at this stage be used to prove that carbon dioxide governs
temperature.

This leaves, as a last resort, semi-inane speculation. Some strata of the earth, such as wind-blown sands and red coloured sediments, may or may not have been deposited under dry conditions. Red beds do at least suggest a level of oxidation attributable to a dryish, desert- like climate, or at least an alternating, wet and dry climate. Large quantities of such sediments appearing in the geologic record, especially if in association with a fauna and flora normally associated with warmth, could indicate global warming. They could equally suggest a change in the configuration of the drifting continents, which happened to be conducive to a warm climate in an area where sediments were being preserved. They could be merely an outcome of what happened to be preserved. The same might be said of strata containing evidence of glacial activity and frost. Changes in the position and altitude of landmasses theoretically could lead to temperate climate at a pole and frost at the equator. Was that a time of worldwide drought brought on by global warming? Was it a time of worldwide frost brought on by global cooling? Was it an accident of the configuration of the land and sea? Some strata are rich in coal, some in oil, some in carbonate (such as limestone) reefs. Are these buried carbonates and hydrocarbons products of times when there was a lot of CO2 in the air, or perhaps methane (CH4), furthering organic processes such as vegetable and coral growth? If so, was the world heated at that time by these gases? Is there any link, in the geologic record, between the occurrence of deposits indicative of a dry climate, or hot climate, and those rich in carbon? If there is, it is obscure.

The reader will do well if he can find someone able to convincingly link these fragments together into a coherent picture of past climates.

There are established facts, the principle fact being that we are mere bathers at the edge of the ocean of knowledge. And, undeniably, greenhouse gases can warm a planet.

• For the last 500 million years the climate cannot have changed significantly, as evidenced by the survival of complex life.
• In that time the earth 'handled' stupendous quantities of greenhouse gases.
• Climate cycles in time, at least partly in relationship to changes in the sun.
• Global temperatures have been known to fall at the same time as greenhouse gas concentrations have been increasing.
• Sudden changes such as the onset of ice-ages and the rapid desertification of the Sahara, besides a myriad of lesser but even more sudden events, cannot realistically be blamed on gradual fluctuations in atmospheric gas concentrations?
• Geologic history in combination with measurement of CO2 shows that, since the advent of CO2 - reliant organisms such as plants, the earth's atmosphere can seldom have been lower in its atmospheric reserves of this compound, than it was 100 years ago. Barring input from other sources, some replenishment of the atmosphere with CO2 was necessary, to avert a possible global catastrophe.
• There is a suggestion of a mysterious link between the earth's magnetism, and climate. Two prolonged periods of subdued magnetic field reversal activity seem to have been accompanied by heightened deposition of red sediment beds, suggestive of climate change during those times. (Dramatic species extinctions followed these periods of relative magnetic quiescence.) The climate change equally might have been triggered by landmass movement, there being evidence of rapid seafloor spreading during at least one of the periods of magnetic reversal quiescence.
• Oxygen can be attracted by a magnet - and is exceptional amongst the common gases for having this property..
• The Bible permits Man to utilize the earth's minerals Deut.8:9: "Out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass". It suggests a link between magnetism and climate. Job 38:24: "By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?"

The science of climate change seems bound up in the following formulae, which some educators have been marinating young minds in for the past century or more.

Dust + time + chance + collisions ———> planets

Chemicals + time + lightning ———> life

Species + time + chance ———> new species

It seems natural to progress to the formula, greenhouse gases + time + chance (with or without lightning) ———> global warming. In all cases the catalyst which enables the reaction to happen is jargon.

We might observe, as an addend, that collective-breast-beating over the environment may well be therapeutic; that environmental awareness, worldwide, could be a good thing; and the inefficencies, the needless greenhouse gases, produced by the bureaucracy established to control greenhouse gases, could dwarf the geologic record itself.

Further reading:

Lassen (n.d.) provides up-to-date confirmation that the sun is regulating earth's temperature: "70-90 years oscillations in global mean temperature are correlated with corresponding oscillations in solar activity. Whereas THE SOLAR INFLUENCE IS OBVIOUS in the data, from the last 4 centuries, SIGNATURES OF HUMAN ACTIVITY ARE NOT.........." (emphasis added) (www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html).

The Zeeman Effect of splitting spectral lines may or may not be the parted of Job 38:24, but light is an electromagnetic phenomenon and the parting of light implicates magnetism.

East (Job 38:24) is defined by Smith's Bible Dictionary: "The Hebrew term kedem properly means that which is before, or in front of, a person, and was applied to the east from the custom of turning in that direction when describing the points of the compass, before, behind, the right and the left representing respectively east, west, south and north. See Job 23:8-9."

Therefore Job 38:24 conceivably might mean, "Tell me how a magnetic effect of the sun/stars, an adjunct/associate of light radiation, breaks up the 'up front' wind circulation that would normally be expected on a planet such as Earth?" (Powerful, destroying, persistent winds are a feature of many explored planets with atmospheres.) Or, taking a leap; "How does the sun, via magnetic effects associated with light radiation, influence our weather?" Such an interpretation is entirely consistent with the technically sophisticated book of Job. (We have just been advized, earlier in this chapter, that the early earth was initially shrouded entirely by water or something such, and by thick, persistent, cloud-like haze; that it early began to spin in the manner of a cylindrical seal imprinter turning on clay; and so on). Going farther afield: The Light of the World, the Universal Constant who "changes not" (Mal.3:6), the Son of Man, in a figure, the sun, which, as a strong man, "rejoices to run a race"(Ps.19:5), the "Sun [upper case S] of Righteousness" (Mal.4:2) - "What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?" (Mark 4:41). The Light of the World, the Sun of Righteousness, being by a chance of the English Language the Son of Righteousness, upholding all things by the word of his power: "And he arose, and rebuked the wind.... and there was a great calm" (Mark 4:39) ......... . Can we take a hint, as to what ultimately might be the best place to look, for the natural engine behind our weather?

A short note on carbon 14 dating and climate change is found in the Educator's Section of this site.

Research involving the analysis of ice-cores reveals a strong correlation between atmospheric carbon levels and temperature. The following graphs show this remarkable proposed correlation.

Source: http://wwwdas.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

It may be of interest to the reader to ponder awhile the remarkably tidy correlations illustrated by these oft-shown graphs. Well has it been said that statistics prove anything. Here, depending on the interpreter, they conspire to shout at us that atmospheric carbon dioxide and atmospheric methane govern world temperature.

Perusal of sources such as those cited above reveals that technicians have tried to eliminate possible bias in the results. Entrapment of gas in compacting snow, in the real world, is not the same as entrapment in a lead-shielded, sterile test-tube. There are many and varied possible causes of bias inherent in the natural events involved in ice-core preservation. We trust that the technical chemistry is accurate.

Looking at these graphs, we see obvious correlations. They cannot be denied. But an investigator tries to think of all the possibilities. The temperature is being controlled by the gas levels - isn't it? Even though the major theoretical greenhouse gas - water - has not been factored in? The dust is being stirred in cooler times when the earth experienced bitter cold and perhaps fallen sea-levels - is it? Does global dust obey temperature so slavishly? Or is it that these two (lesser) greenhouse gases are in fact doing a synchronized dance-step in time with some overriding factor, which simultaneously influences dust? Could the dust be influencing the greenhouse gases? Could an overriding contol be influencing these carbon greenhouse gases, dust levels, and temperature?

Global temperature as graphed is calculated from the proportion of heavier to lighter water molecules in the ice. The weight difference is caused by difference in isotope content of the molecules. Heavier molecules of water vapor tend to condense in a proportion that increases, as temperature decreases. This has been observed. But as those who cook food at an high altitude come to know, pressure also plays a part in the evaporation and condensation of fluids. The same isotope ratio outcome as produced by a temperature change, theoretically could be produced by a pressure change. In theory, the graph could be an indicator of changes in barometric pressure, not temperature. This is unlikely, since it is easier to change a planet's atmospheric temperature than to change the weight of its atmosphere. Nonetheless, temperature and pressure vary depending upon position within the atmosphere. The cloud that provided the ice sample, condensed from water vapor under conditions of temperature and pressure that conspired to give an isotope ratio.Clouds need not always form under stereotyped meteorologic conditions, under the exact same circumstances of temperature and pressure? Can the isotope ratio be assumed to solely indicate temperature? Or could it point to a combined outcome of interacting temperature and pressure, which was a reflection of meteorologic conditions at the time? could the graph be an indicator of a weather cycle, over and above a pure temperature cycle? More provocatively, could such a cycle in atmospheric/climatic conditions affect the production and removal of atmospheric carbon - CO2 and CH4? Are we looking at graphs that suggest that atmospheric conditions influence carbon content of the atmosphere - not the reverse? If so, what controls the fluctuations in the atmospheric conditions? Not the sun, perchance?

Let us now bring something to mind. Krauskopf, p.618, writes:"It makes no difference that some of the carbon expelled by volcanoes has the form of CH4(methane) and CO(carbon monoxide) rather than CO2, because these gases would be quickly oxidized by atmospheric oxygen and so would contribute to the supply of CO2." We take it on good authority, then, that methane tends to be oxidized and converted to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So if you see a peak of methane, shouldn't it be followed with a time lag by a rise in carbon dioxide, as the one contributes to supplies of the other? But an inspection of the graphs suggests they rise and fall semi-simultaneously, as though being simultaneously controlled. At the least, this illustrates the remarkable ameliorating effect of processes in nature, and the complex interaction of as yet unknown processes. Something stops runaway atmospheric change, and science does not yet know the mechanism. Therefore it cannot claim to understand these graphs.

This collection of graphs can only be unlocked when we deduce the prime mover. Carbon dioxide and methane can be influenced by many factors, including climate, as well as theoretically influencing climate. As Geerts & Linacre [http://www.das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html] succinctly phrase it: "it is not clear what drives what". There are more horses in this race than carbon dioxide and methane.

Krauskopf, p.617f, touches on the carbon topic, as of safety and certainty. Let the record speak. "The carbon of sedimentary rocks was nearly all derived from CO2 that once existed in the atmosphere: the carbon of organic materials was fixed in organic compounds by photosynthesis and the carbon of precipitated carbonates represents atmospheric CO2 added to seawater either
directly by solution or indirectly by the respiration and decay of organisms. If we estimate the total amount of carbon buried in sedimentary rocks, therefore, we should get a figure indicating how much CO2 has existed in the air at one time or another. Rubey's calculations (Rubey, 1951, GEOL.SOC.AMERICA BULL.,vol.62, pp.1111-1147) indicate that the amount of buried carbon exceeds that in the present atmosphere, oceans, and organisms by a factor of about 600 times (see Rubey, p.1124). Even if some of the analyses and estimates of volumes on which the calculations rest are greatly in error, the figure would still be startlingly large. Beyond any reasonable doubt. the amount of carbon now in the air is only a tiny fraction of the amount that has existed at some time in the geologic past. This result can be interpreted in several ways. One extreme possibility is that the atmosphere at some early period was very dense, consisting chiefly of CO2 at a partial pressure of about 12 atmospheres, and that the activity of plants plus the deposition of carbonate sediments has gradually reduced the amount to its present low value, 0.0003 atmospheres. This is an unlikely hypothesis, for it would mean that we are living at the very end of the history of life on our planet. Some CO2 is returned to the air by respiration, rock weathering, and organic decay, but the amount is too small to make up for the carbon that is being steadily removed as precipitated carbonates and organic matter buried with sediments. A rough calculation of the carbon balance indicates that CO2 in air will fall to a level too low to support plant life within a few centuries, unless some other source of the gas is available. Since the geologic record gives indisputable evidence for the continuous existence of multicellular organisms for at least 600 million years, and of unicellular life for at least 2 billion years [since extended to 4], the CO2 content of air cannot have dropped far below its present figure for a long time. And it is scarcely believable that the present 0.0003 atmospheres has been reached only now after 2 billion years of steady depletion. An obvious additional source of carbon dioxide is volcanic activity. .... ."

What does the Bible say about environmentalism? The answer to this question could take up a significant portion of cyberspace. The God who made the heaven and the earth does not deal in trivia, but he deals with what some may see as trivial matters, to an infinite depth. He goes direct to the core of a matter, healing the sufferer's sickness rather than his symptoms - the symptoms are relieved as a consequence. Man was given oversight of the environment, so the problem with the environment is the problem with Man. When Man comes into a proper relationship with the Creator, he comes into a potentially dazzling new relationship with the creation. The horse comes before the cart. If it doesn't, look for confused nonsense. Getting back to Eden is not a possibility. Many of us try it, but the way is barred. Utopia no longer dwells on this planet, at a physical location. This doesn't mean we should trash the remnants of Eden.

As one minor instance of biblical teaching on environmentalism, we might consider the question of the greatest and the least commandments.

The lawyers of the pharisaical sect deliberated and pontificated on which were the most important vs least important laws. Christ settled for all time the question of the most important law. That law has the profoundest possible meaning for every human being. It has to do with attitude. It can solve the world's problems. It is not recorded that the Lord addressed the question of the least important law. Perhaps this is because there is no least important law. But some Pharisees thought so. Tradition has it that the least important law is, Deuteronomy 22:6-7: "If a bird's nest chance to be before thee in the way in any tree, or on the ground, whether they be young ones, or eggs, and the dam sitting upon the young, or the eggs, thou shalt not take the dam with the young. But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go, and take the young to thee; that it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days." The reader could be of the mind that if this is a least important law, and it has to do with life and prosperity, then what would be an important law? Those pharisees haven't left us yet, unfortunately, and are pointing the self-righteous finger with as much legal backing as they can muster, to lade men with burdens which they themselves decline to move a finger to lift, even in areas such as birds, trees, cats, dogs, sheep, the entire created order, and legitimate actions of their fellow-men. Ah, but happy is the man who can truthfully say he has no pharisee in him. This author doesn't make that claim. The Bible does give Man permission to cut down trees and engage in agriculture. Jesus Christ was a carpenter. It warns against cutting down just any tree, e.g., Deuteronomy 20:19, 20. We can't be expected to check every tree for bird nests. So how can we obey what some pharisees regarded as the least momentous commandment?

As with all such commandments, they are properly interpreted in the light of the greatest commandment. Man needs the environment. It's good to be able to see a tree, here and there. Birds and the other beneficial species were placed here for Man. Are we here as personal partners with the Creator, to rely on him alone, even for the very food that comes from the ground: or are we servants of the treadmill, the need to make money, the way of the world? Who is trashing the environment, anyway? Not its Creator. But let's not think that primary producers etc are the only people who destroy bird nests. The most elementary study of economics shows that primary producers are no more, and probably less, culpable (except in cases of deliberate irresponsible destruction) than is the man who wields no axe. We are all economically interdependent.

What does the Bible tell us about the environment? It's all going to go, today in geologic time: but in the interim, the deliberate destruction of scenery and the obliteration of native species habitats is not part of the divine plan. When we read commandments such as that quoted above in relation to harvesting birds, we have food for thought. Our activities are either in partnership with God, through faith; or they are sin. And there is a right and a wrong way to approach even the environment.

The Bible suggests that if we are going to have detrimental climate change, it will be caused by attitude, not chemistry.

The Scriptures do not rule out climate change, and they do not say that human activity will not affect the climate. But whether man has a hand in it or not, climate and climate change are ultimately destined by a purpose which is beyond man. If the reader is concerned about climate change it is suggested he might find the following passages helpful -- Genesis 8:20-22; Jeremiah 5:22-14; Jeremiah 14:22; Job 38; Psalm 104.

References:

Geerts, B. & Linacre, E. 2002, 'Ice Cores, CO2 Concentration & Climate' [Online]. Accessed 23 June 2007 from URL: http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html.

Krauskopf, K.B. 1967, Introduction to Geochemistry, McGraw-Hill/Kogakusha, Tokyo.

Lassen, K. n.d., 'Long Term Variations in Solar Activity and their Apparent Effect on Earth's Climate' [Online]. Accessed 19 June 2007 from URL: www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html.