Is the ocean broken?

Water vapor is a (greenhouse) gas. Clouds are either liquid or frozen water, and while very significant to global heat balance, are not greenhouses gases -- because they are not gasses. My understanding is that all the various types of clouds have been very complex to model, as implied by this article.

 

I missed the distinction. Thanks for clarifying your point.

Yes, I understand that the stars don't appear to streak across the sky, but neither are they stationary enough to be able to say that any one particular star or planet is directly overhead a particular point on Earth, except for a split second, or except at the poles. The Magi would also have known that. What they saw (or didn't see), I don't know, but I know they didn't see a "stationary" planet in its natural orbit.

 

Matthew says it stopped. Only a planet could. You say it can't. I disagree.

 

There are two points in the image where the movement of Mars may appear to stop for about three weeks to the naked eye.
Given that the planets are roughly, but not exactly orbiting along the same plane around the Sun, it is possible that a planet's azimuth rises significantly above the topics.

As for hovering over Bethlehem? Well, if there was considered, by ancient astronomers, a divine time to take your measurements, it is possible it could be interpreted that way.

I don't know.

-Will

 

A few more thoughts:

1) Jupiter and Venus were not in conjunction on Dec 25, 2 BC. That conjunction occurred on June 17 of 2 BC, although there was an earlier conjunction between Jupiter and Venus in August of 3 BC.

2) Both of these conjunctions would have occurred after the generally-accepted date of the death of Herod in 4BC, so couldn't have been the Magi's star. However, some think that Herod died in 1 BC.

3) Jupiter's retrograde movement apparently stopped on Dec 25, 2 BC.

4) Both the conjunction and the halting of the retrograde movement could have been seen from anywhere on Earth. There was nothing unique about these events that could be linked specifically to Bethlehem.

5) There is wide debate among Biblical scholars about what the Bethlehem star was. Each theory has serious problems. No consensus has emerged. A prudent Internet pseudo-scholar (that would be me and you) should be very hesitant to select one of those many flawed explanations as "the truth."

Star of Bethlehem | Astronomical object

Matthew 2:9

 

The movement of Mars "stops" with respect to the other stars. It doesn't "stop" over any point on Earth. Over the course of a night (or part of a day) Mars would rise in the east and set in the west, just like all the other planets and stars -- at least those along the ecliptic.

Venus is always either the Morning Star or the Evening Star, and thus seen only close to the horizon. So if you didn't take your measurements close to dawn or dusk you would miss Venus altogether.

Smart man. Neither does anyone else know, even those who claim to know.

 

"Herod's death is mentioned in the works of Flavius Josephus, who wrote some 100 years after the event. Josephus stated that Herod died soon after a lunar eclipse, and he wrote in great detail about Herod's funeral. The only lunar eclipse that is consistent with all these details happened on Jan. 10, 1 B.C. According to Josephus, a lunar eclipse in 4 B.C. was the one that preceded Herod's death, and this is why most scholars have assumed that Herod died in 4 B.C. However, copies of Josephus' writings prior to 1552 list 1 B.C. as the year of Herod's death. It is possible that some scribe, toiling by candlelight late at night in 1552, copied the date incorrectly."

Star of Bethlehem may have been planets Jupiter and Venus: IU News Room: Indiana University https://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/1203.html

Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem for the FIVE YEAR Roman census. The census of 8/7 BC is too soon, and the census of 3/2 BC more believable. Another bit of evidence Herod died in 1 BC not 4 BC, is the coins with Herods head were first issued in 1 BC. Romans controlled the coinage and only dead kings got their face on one.

Consensus and popular opinion do not create facts. Accept that as a truth.

Yes, Jupiter finished retrograde motion on December 25th, 2 BC. I don't need to remind you everything rises in the east and sets in the west. The eastward prograde planet motion against the star field resumed after a stop in the retrograde westerly movement. This could be viewed as hovering over Bethlehem as the rest of the sky continued moving westward.

Jupiter began retrograde motion December 2, 2BC. From the area around Babylon to Jerusalem is a two month camel ride. Retrograde motion is westerly movment against the star field. As the magi approached Jerusalem in the final weeks of their trip, was Jupiter leading them on towards the west? Following a star making more sense?

Glad you did some research..

What has this to do with broken oceans? Since you want to blame humans for global warming, aren't you ignoring the bulk of human evil? Judgement is coming soon.

 

The timing of Herod's death is important to you, but not to me. For whatever reasons, most, but not all, scholars think Herod died in 4 BC. I don't know, and I don't care.

Herod the Great | Year of death: either 4 BCE, or 5 BCE, 1 BCE, 1 CE

Not at all. I see you're backing away from the Venus/Jupiter conjunction theory. Smart boy.

Did all the "wise" men in the world go on two month westward treks every time a planet went into retrograde motion? I rather doubt it. What about those "wise" men who lived three months away, or 1 week away? And nothing about either the conjunction or the retrograde motion would give any indication that Bethlehem (or anyplace else, for that matter) should be their destination.

This is why I abandoned religion many years ago. Most religions spin these fantastic myths that might contain a bit of truth somewhere, but have accreted layer upon layer of fantasy. And the gullible of the world unthinkingly swallow those fables hook, line, and sinker.

No thanks, not for me!

 

Ozone-depleting chemicals may spend less time in the atmosphere than previously thought

• A new study has determined that ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, stay in the atmosphere for a shorter amount of time than previously estimated
• Previous lifetime estimates for CFC-11, -12, and -113 were 52, 100, and 85 years
• Current lifetime estimates for CFC-11, -12, and -113 are now 49 years, 85 years, and 80 years
  
• Therefore the CFCs, which were globally phased out in 2010, should be circulating at much lower concentrations than what has recently been measured.
  
• The results suggest that there is new, illegal production of CFCs
• They estimate that these new CFC emissions are equivalent to the total yearly greenhouse gas emissions emitted by the United Kingdom

The results were published in Nature Communications

 

Do you deny AGW is a religion with you?
You believe in end of century prophesies by computer model oracles.
You want to change our country and the world to comply with the dictates of your faith.
That was my agenda for bringing the "Star" up. We can use computers to look backwards and forwards in time where astronomy is concerned, but nowhere else.

 

Religion is defined as:

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.​

No, I don't consider AGW to be a "superhuman controlling power."

 

There are many religions, recognized religions, that fall outside your cherry picked definition. Japanese ancestor worship comes to mind. Worship of the state by some political groups. Atheists applied for and were given status as a religion.
So, with a broader definition, would you deny believing in prophecy generated by computer model akin to religion? It's definitely a faith, belief in things unseen.

 

I didn't cherry pick that definition; Google cherry picked it. When I speak of religion I always think of it including a supernatural component. So for purposes of clarity I will stick with Google's definition. To use the broader definition you apparently subscribe to makes the word so vague as to be almost useless.

Definition of FAITH:

1) complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2) strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.​

I have a weak form of #1 faith in many people, concepts and things.
I have no #2 faith.

Definition of PROPHECY:

a prediction.​

YES, at some level I have "faith" in "prophecies" generated by computer models. But NO, I don't believe those computer-generated "prophecies" are in any way supernatural, and NO, they don't have my complete trust or confidence. Therefore, NO, I don't believe my "faith" in computer-generated models is "akin to religion."

 

If you don't have complete confidence in the dire predictions you publish, why would you want to inflict change on our country to accommodate those warnings? Seems you have enough confidence to be an advocate for AGW. Are you that reckless?

 

I think an apt analogy can be made between fighting Climate Change and fighting a conventional battle. In a conventional war commanders seldom have complete information about battlefield conditions, yet they are expected to make critical and life-altering decisions based on what information they do have. Similarly, our political leaders are tasked with making decisions regarding our use of fossil fuels. They have a lot of information, but certainly not as much as any of us would like for them to have. Like a battlefield commander, doing nothing really isn't an option. The "enemy," whether that is the soldiers of an opposing force, or whether it is increasingly warm temperatures or acidifying oceans, will be "attacking" and forcing unwanted results upon us. We can either be passive and do nothing, or we can resist using the best tools and knowledge available to us, imperfect as they may be.