Global Warming

[Loudmouth]

Christianity is not pseudoscience. The only evidence any Christian needs to support a Supernatural event would be things said to have occurred from it and in some way evident today. Sediment (not all of it obviously), the inability of evolution to explain the concept of a human sole, evidence of co-existing species with humans not just vanishing from co-existence but everywhere present dying in a manner that suggests a sudden event while humans remained, and so on. Are there opposing natural explanations for such events? Sure, but without knowing that is exactly what actually happened natural events are the only thing we can appeal to. It does not mean that evidence could not also be the result of a Supernatural event. That is logic, not pseudo science.
And God, when He walked here, quite clearly valued faith that came without physical proof or someone one needing it.

From purely logic point too we can say that a love that is demanded (because He proved He should have it) is a very different thing than a love that is very freely given. Still He has slapped a few people to get their attention and I imagine He will continue to do so. Why He won't do that for any particular person (or everyone) I think goes to the same logical point about Love. So am not sure why anyone would want God to prove He is God before they will love Him, especially when He obviously loved them enough to respect their dignity and will on the matter.

This is what I mean. This is yet another evasive post that lacks any specifics. We hear about these poor persecuted scientists who got fired for simply suggesting that the data is being misinterpreted. However, no one can ever show us a single person who this has happened to. Not a one.

This fake persecution complex is just a smoke screen to cover the use of pseudoscience.

 

[RickG]

Actually if all the peer reviews are read, whether the trapped gas can always be assumed to be a direct measurement of actual atmospherics is questioned in some reviews as being an assumption that is not necessarily valid.

Ice cores contribute quite a bit of information about past climates, from the isotopes and contaminants contained withing. Not only are annual layers recognizable but seasonal changes withing those annual layers as well.

What I do not agree with is that ice data says anything about our ability to SIGNIFICANTLY influence the global temperature trend.

The human influence is mostly through fossil fuel emissions and this can be seen in atmospheric isotope ratios of 13C/12C. I can go into great detail with this if you like, but for now here are some references:
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 1731-1748. for tree rings
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d 13Cin atmospheric CO. Tellus 51B, 170-193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79

 

[Root of Jesse]

The belief is the belief in an unfounded conspiracy amongst thousands of scientists in over 30 countries that has spanned decades.

This is just another way of tacitly admitting that the data reported by scientists supports global warming.

But it doesn't support the theory that mankind is the primary cause of global warming.

That doesn't change the fact that the geologic evidence disproves the claim that there was a recent and global flood.

Geologic evidence doesn't disprove anything. It simply has not found what it's looking for.

 

[Loudmouth]

But it doesn't support the theory that mankind is the primary cause of global warming.

Why doesn't it support that conclusion?

Geologic evidence doesn't disprove anything. It simply has not found what it's looking for.

Then what evidence would disprove a recent global flood, if found?

 

[RickG]

I think we are gravitating away from what was asked in the OP. Rather than discussing our views on global warming, lets address what the OP asked.

"So again, if Global Warming is going to cause the level of the ocean to rise, and given these other facts, why is a global flood of Biblical proportions so unbelievable?"​

 

[RealityCheck01]

As we keep pointing out )....

The point for a science thread would be that people should try not to deny the science unless if they have empirical evidence against the science.
This is Mt Everest. No global flood there.

Math: Calculate the volume of water that exists on Earth. There is enough to make sea levels to rise but not by the many kilometers needed to cover up mountains such as Mt Everest.
For example: About 80 meters of ocean trapped in glacial ice
Geology: No physical evidence that there has even been a global flood, e.g. a layer of sediment covering the entire globe.
Biology: No evidence that of an extinction event bigger than any other known extinction event, e.g. every land animal + every fresh water fish + probably every bird.

Personal faith that denies science is a different subject for a different thread.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I think we are gravitating away from what was asked in the OP. Rather than discussing our views on global warming, lets address what the OP asked.

"So again, if Global Warming is going to cause the level of the ocean to rise, and given these other facts, why is a global flood of Biblical proportions so unbelievable?"​

It's hard to see what the connection is supposed to be between the two ideas. If all the ice on earth melted, it would not result in a 'worldwide flood'. There isn't enough water to flood the earth, so a Biblical style flood is unbelievable on the face of it.

Nevertheless, people have looked for evidence of such a flood, and there isn't any.

 

[Radrook]

During Noah's day, the majority of mankind refused to believe that the Earth was going to be flooded .
Jesus tells us that during the last days people would have the same worldly unbelieving attitude.

Matthew 24:38-39(ESV)
38 For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, 39 and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

 

[Radrook]

The point for a science thread would be that people should try not to deny the science unless if they have empirical evidence against the science.
This is Mt Everest. No global flood there.

Math: Calculate the volume of water that exists on Earth. There is enough to make sea levels to rise but not by the many kilometers needed to cover up mountains such as Mt Everest.
For example: About 80 meters of ocean trapped in glacial ice
Geology: No physical evidence that there has even been a global flood, e.g. a layer of sediment covering the entire globe.
Biology: No evidence that of an extinction event bigger than any other known extinction event, e.g. every land animal + every fresh water fish + probably every bird.

Personal faith that denies science is a different subject for a different thread.

Did Noah's Flood Cover the Himalayan Mountains? | The Institute for Creation Research

 

[DrBubbaLove]

It is theists who are saying that a supernatural flood would not leave any detectable evidence. It isn't scientists who are saying that. There is absolutely no reason why a supernatural flood would strip the 14C out of every single organism. There is no reason that a supernatural flood would change the U/Pb, K/Ar, and Rb/Sr of igneous rocks so that those ratios are all consistent with the same date as determined by observed and measured decay rates. There is no reason that a supernatural flood would sort dinosaur fossils so that they are always found beneath igneous rocks that are dated with those same isotope pairs. None of that makes sense.

The only reason that the supernatural is invoked is because the evidence contradicts their beliefs.



The error in measurement is much smaller than the millions and even billions of years separating layers that creationists claim were deposited by a flood just a few thousand years ago.



Evidence for a recent global flood would be evidence that only a recent global flood could produce. Sediments all over the globe is not exclusive to a recent global flood, therefore it is not evidence for a recent global flood.

Not aware of any theist theory that makes claims of an invisible magic flood. Agreed already no natural global flood could perhaps do any of the things, including those mentioned, to explain the current condition of sediment deposits and things in it.

But all floods, like the global one, would produce sediments and we have an abundance of sediment deposits. So we are not lacking in evidence for floods. The scientist says there is no possible KNOWN way to say anything we observe about sediments points to a single global flood event. I am fine with those statements. Many Christians still believing in such a flood do not require an understood KNOWN way to explain the layering or things in the deposits from it, they just need evidence of flood, of which we have plenty in the form of deposits. And why would anyone imagine a supernatural event is restricted to operating in KNOWN ways?

As far as how a supernatural natural global flood may or may not behave, what else may or may not been supernaturally involved at same time, who can say. After all He basically did say He wanted to erase most everything and start over. What the deposits should or should not look like not now after such a "reset" - who would know besides God?

What would "erase" as part of a supernatural event entail? No clue. But the fact we can all imagine what it might include indicates we do not restrict the possibilities to just what is KNOWN through science.
The onus here would not be for the Christian to "prove" a supernatural flood occurred, but for the scientist to prove it COULD not. Rather ironic to demand proof when it that is not a bar even science forces ideas over. So to even demand "proof" of a supernatural event is suspect.

What possible human "reason" can we use to declare what a supernatural event would or would not do?

Actually your statement about the "only reason" Christians make these claims is blantantly false and historically provable as false. Not that facts seem to matter all that much to some here when stacked against herd mentality.

I would not presume what could or could not happen with a supernatural event myself, am unclear why an atheist would claim special knowledge about what God can or cannot do in that regard.

I agree geological evidence for a naturally occurring global flood appears lacking. Lacking your apparent special knowledge about God, I disagree that proves a supernatural event did not occur.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

No competent scientist will exclude any information that is available. If such reliable data exists I would very much like to access it. Sources?

We moved past this. I was asked by another poster and you explained already why you and apparently many others reject the opposing data. As far as people excluding things when presenting to the public, especially when attempting to get the herd to fork up money to do something about it, there have multiple and very public instances of playing loose with the charting and claims from the data. People lost their jobs over it finally. Not as quick as a naysayer meterologist might lose their job. I recall some embarrassment to this effect of "bedazzling" in presentations regarding the various govt agencies and the so called "hockey stick" graphs.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I recall some embarrassment to this effect of "bedazzling" in presentations regarding the various govt agencies and the so called "hockey stick" graphs.

What so-called hockey stick graph?

"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."

 

[DrBubbaLove]

This is what I mean. This is yet another evasive post that lacks any specifics. We hear about these poor persecuted scientists who got fired for simply suggesting that the data is being misinterpreted. However, no one can ever show us a single person who this has happened to. Not a one.

This fake persecution complex is just a smoke screen to cover the use of pseudoscience.

Who is crying and making false claims?
May 15, 2007
"University of Washington climate scientist Mark Albright was recently dismissed from his position as associate state climatologist, just weeks after exposing false claims of shrinking glaciers in the Cascade Mountains,"
See more at: CLIMATOLOGIST FIRED FOR EXPOSING WARMING MYTHS

PEER REVIEW PAPERS PROVE IT MUST BE RIGHT

"Thousands of papers listed supporting global warming is no surprise given the $165B given to universities and researchers (Universities, NOAA, NASA, national labs) to produce papers focusing on what would happen IF the climate models were right. Even with that, there were 1350 peer review papers questioning global warming and1000 papers believing cooling has begun."
ICECAP

Back To The Dark Ages: Update: Top French Meteorologist Who Questioned ‘Global Warming’ Fired

NASA’s James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for “high crimes against humanity.” In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.” In 2007, The Weather Channel’s climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11...nge-book-the-global-warming-policy-forum-gwpf/

No Dissent Allowed! 79-Year old Skeptical Climate Scientist Victim of Witch-Hunt – Fears for his ‘safety’ after declaring himself a skeptic
A (Warmist) German physicist compared Swedish climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson's joining of skeptic group to joining the Ku Klux Klan.

Rupert Darwall: 'In their persecution of an aged colleague who stepped out of line and their call for scientists to be subject to a faith test, 21st-century climate scientists have shown less tolerance than a 16th-century monarch. There is something rotten in the state of climate science. --Rupert Darwall,
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/02/back-to-the-dark-ages-top-french-weatherman-fired-over-climate-change-book-the-global-warming-policy-forum-gwpf/

Professor Loses Job Over Global Warming Criticism - Infinity News Network
EXCLUSIVE: Prof Fired For Calling Global Warming ‘Unproved Science’ Stands Firm - The College Fix

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

Mish Michaels isn’t alone: Many meteorologists question climate change science - The Boston Globe
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Ice cores contribute quite a bit of information about past climates, from the isotopes and contaminants contained withing. Not only are annual layers recognizable but seasonal changes withing those annual layers as well.


The human influence is mostly through fossil fuel emissions and this can be seen in atmospheric isotope ratios of 13C/12C. I can go into great detail with this if you like, but for now here are some references:
Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 1731-1748. for tree rings
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d 13Cin atmospheric CO. Tellus 51B, 170-193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79

Fine. I remain skeptical and the case made it seems principally from a local uptick in temps over a ten years or so that has since reversed does not help. It appears most scientist remain skeptical as well. Again, not about our contribution to heating things up, but about the extent of our impact.
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

Take glacial retreat. That was already documented as happening in the 19th century and has continued at a relatively steady and constant rate (rather than the increasing rate one would expect if our contribution was as alarming as is being suggested, Also a rate which appears to have slowed most recently.
Anyway, am done as you have already indirectly given your response to the actual OPs question and it agrees with my response. Thanks,

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The point for a science thread would be that people should try not to deny the science unless if they have empirical evidence against the science.
This is Mt Everest. No global flood there.

Math: Calculate the volume of water that exists on Earth. There is enough to make sea levels to rise but not by the many kilometers needed to cover up mountains such as Mt Everest.
For example: About 80 meters of ocean trapped in glacial ice
Geology: No physical evidence that there has even been a global flood, e.g. a layer of sediment covering the entire globe.
Biology: No evidence that of an extinction event bigger than any other known extinction event, e.g. every land animal + every fresh water fish + probably every bird.

Personal faith that denies science is a different subject for a different thread.

Re-read the OP, this is not a thread for that debate. And I never appealed to empirical evidence against science, science will never be able to provide empirical evidence that can deny a supernatural event and my faith does not deny science. In fact am Catholic, and that Church rather agrees with and allows science to declare whatever they see fit for natural events and I am free to believe it or not.
Why it should even bother an atheist that science can never disprove God or the occurrence of supernatural events we should wonder at.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

What so-called hockey stick graph?

"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."

Apparently if only if you throw out much of the tree ring data and select a species that supports the hockey stick. This according to a statistician reviewing the data - but have read similar critiques.
Steve McIntyre’s ICCC09 presentation with notes

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I think we are gravitating away from what was asked in the OP. Rather than discussing our views on global warming, lets address what the OP asked.

"So again, if Global Warming is going to cause the level of the ocean to rise, and given these other facts, why is a global flood of Biblical proportions so unbelievable?"​

Six pages in and I've been saying this repeatedly.
Well fortunately am certain we both agree on the answer as I have already commented on your indirect tacit reliance on science and a flawed modern(19th century) historical critique of both traditional theology and the Bible.

 

[Zoii]

So you don't believe God could have done it? And who says there were that many land animals and flight animals? Also, your dimensions are off a bit...

No I dont believe it. Im certain its a parable

 

[Gene2memE]

F It appears most scientist remain skeptical as well. Again, not about our contribution to heating things up, but about the extent of our impact.
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

Surveys aren't peer reviewed.
That's a review of the behaviours of people in carbon intensive industry seeking to outline and better understand the ‘defensive institutional work’ [ie climate change denial] by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association.

The survey is of engineers and geoscientists, who are not necessarily individuals credentialed in climatology.

Those surveyed are members of APEGA (the professional body for oil and gas industry engineers and geoscientists), not a broad range of scientists and certainly not a sample of credentialled climatologists



From the results of that survey, you could argue that a majority (56%) of engineers and geoscientists employed by the oil and gas industry in Alberta Canada believe that climate change is happening and a little more than a third (36%) believe that humans are mostly responsible, while another quarter (24%) believe that nature is mostly responsible.

So,

It's not a peer-reviewed survey
It doesn't represent the majority of scientists
It says nothing about a crisis
It shows that the majority of those surveyed believe climate change is happening, and that man is either mostly or partially responsible

I'm not arguing for/against anthropogenic climate change, but that Forbes title and much of the article are misleading in the extreme. That's not surprising though, given the author and his affiliations.

 

[Dave RP]

While I am not a believer in AGW, I believe that climate cools and warms naturally. And I know that those of you who think Global Warming will have catastrophic results believe that sea level is going to rise because of the phenomenon of Global Warming.

So...I want to ask why it is that nobody wants to believe there was a real world-wide flood event? Every culture on earth, from the Aboriginal People to Native Americans has a worldwide flood scenario. Then there's the specter of a product we find on the shelves these days "Himalayan Sea Salt". Don't we know that the Himalayan Mountains are rising as a result of the continental shelf being pushed up by another plate?

So again, if Global Warming is going to cause the level of the ocean to rise, and given these other facts, why is a global flood of Biblical proportions so unbelievable?

Personally I find the concept of the biblical flood ridiculous for a number of reasons, amongst which are:

1. God really chose to murder everyone on earth except one family, so every other human being on the entire planet deserved to die - really?

2. Where did all the water come from to cover the entire planet including all the mountains?

3. Where did all the water go to?

4. Covering then entire planet with water would have killed all the plants, what would the survivors have eaten?

5. Noah and his family interbred like crazy to repopulate the world - really?

6. If they all got off in modern Turkey or wherever, how did (for example) kangaroos hop all the way to Australia, leaving no kangaroo fossils anywhere else, and no kangaroo offspring anywhere else (repeat for huge numbers of other organisms found only in isolated populations)

7. How could one family have fed and watered and cleaned this huge ark with thousands of animals doing their business every day?

Frankly the whole story is so ridiculous the more relevant question would be - why does anyone give it any credence at all?