yes.... another global warming thread

ernest_theweedwhackerguy

Hello, I'm Ernest P. Worrell
Jun 1, 2004
7,646
251
35
New York
✟16,541.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Carbon dating is accurate for dating up to 50,000 years back, plus it's only one dating method of many.

Can you actually prove that?
Prove the world it over 4 trillion years old. And give me good solid facts. Not carbon dated rocks, that are about 3,000 years old, regardless.
It's theoretically accurate up to 50,000 years, so in hypothesis, yes. You'd be right.
But this REAL world isn't hypo-theoretical. Just like evolution. It never passed the stage of being a hypothesis, but it went against the Bible so it offered a different view on things.


Completely false, seeing as zircons found in Australia have been shown to be over 3.8 billion years old.
Nice try, but the sea levels will still rise. There's a lot of water locked up in Antartic and Artic ice, whether it be in icebergs or land ice sheets. :D

How?! :confused:
How will they rise? It's the same concept, Reanimation.
The only difference is that the ocean is a much bigger cup. :)
 
Upvote 0
S

SonicBOOM

Guest
I can't believe that some people refuse to believe the evidence for ManBearPig's existence. I mean if the noted scientist and inventor of the internet, Al Gore, says he is real then I believe him.


Al Gore is NOT a scientist nor an envirementalist. sure he claims to be both, but his actions sure testify against him. Plus if you look at the history of Al gore, you will see that he has been trying to be the first "envirementalist presedent" for some time. They just recently disapproved of this standing right before he made "an inconveint truth". i think the man is a lier and a selfish pig. He will seek self-glory at ANY selfish cost.

Personally I'm kind of sick of people claiming there is sooooooo much weighty evedence for global warming. If I would have to take an honest assesment I would honestly say the exact opposite and what is REALLY happening is that the ones who beleive in global warming are getting all the spotlight and glory. I like how one scientist said it:

"the IPCC has become the global warming bible if you will, you CAN'T disagree with it, and if you do they quistion your motives"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Trashionista

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2007
6,222
554
The Copacabana
✟9,243.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
CA-Liberals
Hey, if The Weather Channel founder John Coleman says that global warming is "the greatest scam in history" I'm more apt to believe him, a former meteorologist, than Al Gore. Eastern Washington had a awful winter than lasted from at least October to April. It was 38º in the morning on Monday; the coldest this week has ever been here.

:amen:

I think that's been one of the movement's biggest hurdles. Maybe not Al Gore, but I always thought the involvement, the speeches and appearances by public creative figures like Leonardo DiCaprio quite unbelievable.

Not that Leo is unintelligent or that he isn't well-versed on the subject, but I just can't take him seriously.
 
Upvote 0

Reanimation

Well-Known Member
Nov 1, 2007
5,914
200
✟14,648.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
ummmm guess what? The research is STILL in it's infancy.
Who are you to say that the research is still in its infancy? You aren't a climatologist. All of the world's major science bodies agree on the evidence and its implications. That should say enough.
Honestly if our knowlege about weather is still so limited that we can't even predict a weather patturn acceratly for a week's time? [how often is your weather man correct?]. Than I can't be expected to beleive that the science we have now is anymore up-to-date than it was all those years ago.
Haha, my 'weather-man' is very accurate. Maybe the Bureau of Meterology does a better job than whoever is in charge of weather forecasting wherever you are. ;)

Besides, it's completely beside the point. Climate is not a study of day-to-day weather, it's a study of weather trends and characteristics.
If the Bureau of Meterology were to predict a week without rain during an El-Nino Oscillation, and it were to drizzle on one day that week, it wouldn't suddenly mean that all of our knowledge of climate science is wrong. Climate study is a study of weather trends, and El-Nino conditions produce drier conditions- which Australia is currently suffering. Just because a forecast here and there is inaccurate does not mean that our understanding of these trends is somehow wrong. We have a very good understanding of these trends and the effects that they produce. Daily weather forecasting is a completely different ball game.

Weather prediction involves measuring the state of the atmosphere at a given time and extrapolating on the immediate future using various initial condition models. These models are good for very short ranges, but their accuracy falls quickly after that.

Climate models are the study of long-term weather trends, and are much more accurate when used for long-term predictions as they incorporate much more data.
Besides it just seems weird to me that those articals presented such absulute answers when they KNEW the science was incomplete. I quote from the 1975 artical "this famine should accur in the next 10 years?] They predicted their "ice age" to happen by 1985! If they TRULY weren't seeking propaganda and were REALLY trying to inform the people of the truth? they wouldn't put such absulute answers in the artical when the answers really are NOT so absulute!
Yes, they shouldn't have. As you can see, the words of the scientists of the time aren't anything like what is written in that article.
Those articals really remind me of today's message on global warming, and guess what? the science IS still incomplete! What does that mean for us? NOTHING HAS CHANGED!
We have a far better understanding of the evidence and the world's major science bodies all agree on what this evidence means. Much has changed. :thumbsup:
Can you actually prove that?
Yes, carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years. Half-lives are a constant, they do not vary.
Prove the world it over 4 trillion years old.
:doh:
And give me good solid facts. Not carbon dated rocks, that are about 3,000 years old, regardless.
Strawman, carbon dating isn't used to date anything older than 50,000 years old.
It's theoretically accurate up to 50,000 years, so in hypothesis, yes. You'd be right.
But this REAL world isn't hypo-theoretical. Just like evolution. It never passed the stage of being a hypothesis, but it went against the Bible so it offered a different view on things.
Out in the real world, the laws of physics don't jump around, change and go haywire. Isotopic decay rates are constant- that's how we can accurately date materials back to those ages.
How?! :confused:
How will they rise? It's the same concept, Reanimation.
The only difference is that the ocean is a much bigger cup. :)
Perhaps you don't understand what an ice sheet is- it rests on land. The Antartic ice sheet covers 98% of the continent and contains ~61% of the world's fresh water.
Nor have you taken into account the fact that saltwater is far denser than freshwater, i.e. freshwater has a greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when the freshwater icesheets melt in saltwater, they contribute a greater volume of meltwater than they originally displaced.
 
Upvote 0

ernest_theweedwhackerguy

Hello, I'm Ernest P. Worrell
Jun 1, 2004
7,646
251
35
New York
✟16,541.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Yes, carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years. Half-lives are a constant, they do not vary.
:doh: Strawman, carbon dating isn't used to date anything older than 50,000 years old.

Well how do you know do you know the world is that old then?! :doh:

Out in the real world, the laws of physics don't jump around, change and go haywire. Isotopic decay rates are constant- that's how we can accurately date materials back to those ages.

I can make the laws of physics jump. Tis not hard. Fill up a glass of water, take a toothpick and a lighter.
Balance the toothpick on the edge of the cup and torch one end with the lighter.
Guess what, one half of the toothpick burns away, yet it's still balanced!
:doh: Huh, strange. I thought the laws of physics couldn't "jump"...
But about decay rates. They aren't constant either! Everything decays over the course of time, right. But it changes given different circumstances. It's never the same.

Perhaps you don't understand what an ice sheet is- it rests on land. The Antartic ice sheet covers 98% of the continent and contains ~61% of the world's fresh water.

Ok... Yeah, what's your point? Not trying to sound like a jerk or anything, but I did know that, and there's really nothing that changes what I said.
So instead of it being one big block of ice, it's water with a sheet of ice over it. Sooooo, that means that even LESS water is going to come from the melting of the caps, things like that. The water will have its chance to disperse, yada yada yada, it still won't flood the world.

Nor have you taken into account the fact that saltwater is far denser than freshwater, i.e. freshwater has a greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when the freshwater icesheets melt in saltwater, they contribute a greater volume of meltwater than they originally displaced.

Uhhh, you're backwards, aren't you?
If freshwater was more dense than salt water, than how come I could go up to the Dead Sea in Utah, and literally walk on water because there's so much salt in it? :scratch:
 
Upvote 0

Reanimation

Well-Known Member
Nov 1, 2007
5,914
200
✟14,648.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Well how do you know do you know the world is that old then?! :doh:
Because radiocarbon dating is only one method of many used for dating. Uranium-lead and potassium-argon are, for example, two methods used for dating older materials.
I can make the laws of physics jump. Tis not hard. Fill up a glass of water, take a toothpick and a lighter.
Balance the toothpick on the edge of the cup and torch one end with the lighter.
Guess what, one half of the toothpick burns away, yet it's still balanced!
:doh: Huh, strange. I thought the laws of physics couldn't "jump"...
What on Earth are you talking about?
But about decay rates. They aren't constant either! Everything decays over the course of time, right. But it changes given different circumstances. It's never the same.
(Keeping this simple here-) Decay rates are always the same. Experiments have been done to try and change the decay rates of the isotopes we use in dating, but they do not alter.
Ok... Yeah, what's your point? Not trying to sound like a jerk or anything, but I did know that, and there's really nothing that changes what I said.
So instead of it being one big block of ice, it's water with a sheet of ice over it. Sooooo, that means that even LESS water is going to come from the melting of the caps, things like that. The water will have its chance to disperse, yada yada yada, it still won't flood the world.
No, it's not water with a sheet of ice over it- it's ice. It's a sheet of ice resting on land, a solid resting on a solid.
Uhhh, you're backwards, aren't you?
If freshwater was more dense than salt water, than how come I could go up to the Dead Sea in Utah, and literally walk on water because there's so much salt in it? :scratch:
You didn't read what I said:
Nor have you taken into account the fact that saltwater is far denser than freshwater, i.e. freshwater has a greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when the freshwater icesheets melt in saltwater, they contribute a greater volume of meltwater than they originally displaced.

Read it again.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums