Global Warming

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has had a clean. ​

Please refrain from flaming one another any further; this thread does not need warming!​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Root of Jesse]

The geologic evidence demonstrates that the world was not completely covered at any time in the last 100 million years, at a minimum.



Every fossil they dig up supports this finding, and the genetic evidence also supports it. The differences between the chimp and human genomes puts our common ancestor at 5-8 million years ago.

3 million years ago we find Australopithecines. No modern humans, and no Homo species whatsoever. It isn't until about 1.5 million years ago that we start seeing early Homo species that still have ape-like features. At about 200,000 we start seeing modern humans. The Neanderthal genome also supports this, showing that our common ancestor existed about 500,000 years ago.

Question for you: What segregates Australopithecines with modern humans? We define humans as beings with souls. What's to say that the Genesis account wasn't talking about Adam and Eve as some more primitive being than a 'modern human'? After all, there's no account that shows Adam and Eve building cities or villages, or making tools...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Then would you agree that man's burning of fossil fuels is responsible for recent global warming? Yes or no?

I would say no. The only reason mankind is having more impact now is because of the vast numbers of humans on the planet breathing and eating and living.

But I can also tell you that electric cars aren't going to do anything much, because electricity is most efficiently generated by burning fossil fuels...

Based on what evidence?

The fact that climate changed drastically many times when humans weren't there in great numbers to cause it.

Can you show me a living dodo bird? What about a living passenger pigeon?

Those are just two examples that prove you wrong.

You believe that the extinction of animals proves that global warming is harmful?

What evidence do you base this on?



Except that you have failed to demonstrate that it isn't true.



You haven't shown that the conclusions are wrong.

Everyone has an agenda. I just wish everyone would be forthcoming with what that agenda is...

 

[Root of Jesse]

There have been several published peer review studies that have examined the published peer review climate research literature. It is not opinions of scientists, it what 97% of the research shows. Would you like links to some of them?

Links? I don't believe 97% of scientists agree on the exact same premise.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The reason for the current inter-glacial is due to Milankovitch Cycles. That cycle is now in a down turn where we should be cooling, but instead we are warming at a rate faster than any previous warming rate in geologic history. Furthermore, there were not 7 billion people on earth 11,700 years ago. Things are a bit crowed now with deforestation increasing, climate conditions changing in agricultural areas, and ocean acidification increasing. 11,000 years ago AGW would not have been a problem, today it is.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You are arguing that if temperatures fluctuate through natural processes in the past that this means humans can't do the same. This is obviously false.



You are shifting the goal posts, as usual.

You are arguing that warming won't hurt anyone. Will flooding nearly the entire state of Florida cause harm?

Do you believe that animals and people dying is the definition of 'harm'? One of the scientists' greatest ideas was 'survival of the fittest' to describe how evolution occurs. Do you think that, if the oceans are rising, people won't figure out that they need to move? Do you think that Florida was always there?

 

[Root of Jesse]

In reading the article in full, it is make the case that sea ice globally over all is decreasing and also makes the very clear point that the Antarctic and Arctic are completely different situations (topography). Furthermore, that is a 2014 article, Antarctica has lost much ice volume in that time. Also, note the word "volume". That is much more important than extent (area).

links? I've heard that the ice in Antarctica is actually increasing.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Then why should geologists reject all of the evidence for local floods spanning billions of years simply because someone makes the claim that the supernatural created that evidence?

How would a human in those days know if a flood was local or worldwide? Also, the question arises, why wouldn't a people report that their area was flooded, and why couldn't many of them occur at the same time?

How are the characteristics of a sediment layer any different than a fingerprint? We can observe natural processes produce these same sediments in the here and now just like we can observe fingers leaving fingerprints.



Because that is how science works. When you are doing science you have to use a testable and falsifiable hypothesis.

If you want, you can certainly reject the scientific method and believe that everything is made through supernatural means no matter if there is evidence for a natural process. However, I think you can see that such a method just isn't that useful for understanding how the world around us works.



The same argument could be used to throw DNA and fingerprint evidence out of a court case.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The weight of evidence isn't imagined.

Actually, we have just proved that it is.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Question for you: What segregates Australopithecines with modern humans? We define humans as beings with souls. What's to say that the Genesis account wasn't talking about Adam and Eve as some more primitive being than a 'modern human'? After all, there's no account that shows Adam and Eve building cities or villages, or making tools...

Maybe not Adam and Eve, but "And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."

That's just one generation after Adam and Eve (who lived to a ripe age, as the story goes).

 

[Root of Jesse]

Maybe not Adam and Eve, but "And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."

That's just one generation after Adam and Eve (who lived to a ripe age, as the story goes).

I agree with you, but we also believe, most Christians, that is, that time in Genesis is not linear, nor is it literal. Time in Genesis is very fluid. We are to believe that it happened, whether or not the way it is portrayed is accurate.

 

[RickG]

Links? I don't believe 97% of scientists agree on the exact same premise.

Thank you for your interest. Here's links to 4 papers published in peer review journals showing the 97% consensus.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Expert credibility in climate change

Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

 

[RickG]

links? I've heard that the ice in Antarctica is actually increasing.

It is currently at its lowest recorded point.
Sea Ice Index

 

[RickG]

I prefer looking at the actual science rather than media opinion. Here's a link to a paper NASA (Hansen, Makiko, 2011) on Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change, where Milankovitch Cycles are discussed in detail. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf

And here's another paper discussing Milankovitch Cycles. Of particulate note in it, the peer review article published in the journal Science, states that the current cycle begin its cooling cycle 6,000 years ago which will continue for the next 23,000 years. Of course it too describes why this cycle will not cool due to anthropogenic intervention. Even during the warm periods of the cycle CO2 was 30 to 40 percent less than it is now. Modeling the Climatic Response to Orbital Variations | Science

 

[Loudmouth]

"known" being the operative word.

Exactly. We can watch annual lake varves and annual ice layers being produced right now. That's how we know.

Here is an example of how a flood would interrupt lake varves. The fine grained sediments with alternating light and dark layers are lake varves. The coarse grained sediments above and below the varves are flood deposits. Notice the difference?

Annual lake varves and flood deposits are really easy to tell apart.

Regarding Chinese history, how do you know there's no gap? And what if the Chinese culture started at the end of the Flood?

Are we talking about Noah's flood or not?

 

[Loudmouth]

Question for you: What segregates Australopithecines with modern humans?

I am not sure how you segregate two things together. That seems to be a bit of a contradiction, probably just an honest mistake on your part. I will assume you meant to ask what separates Australopithecines and modern humans.

The answer is the physical differences.

B is an Australopithecine. A is a chimp and N is a modern human. As you can see, B has a jaw that juts forward, strong brow ridge, and a small cranium, all features like those seen in chimps.

We define humans as beings with souls.

You can define humans as people who ride magic unicorns. That doesn't mean that magic unicorns are real just because you define humans in such a manner.

What's to say that the Genesis account wasn't talking about Adam and Eve as some more primitive being than a 'modern human'? After all, there's no account that shows Adam and Eve building cities or villages, or making tools...

What's to say that it did?

 

[Loudmouth]

I agree with you, but we also believe, most Christians, that is, that time in Genesis is not linear, nor is it literal. Time in Genesis is very fluid. We are to believe that it happened, whether or not the way it is portrayed is accurate.

You are entitled to your own beliefs, but not your own reality. At some point, we will need to see some evidence to back these claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually, we have just proved that it is.

Where?

 

[Loudmouth]

I would say no. The only reason mankind is having more impact now is because of the vast numbers of humans on the planet breathing and eating and living.

Please explain how increasing CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is not having an effect on global temperatures.

But I can also tell you that electric cars aren't going to do anything much, because electricity is most efficiently generated by burning fossil fuels...

By what measure?

What about dams? Nuclear power?

The fact that climate changed drastically many times when humans weren't there in great numbers to cause it.

Why can't humans do what nature did in the past?

You believe that the extinction of animals proves that global warming is harmful?

You claimed that humans have no lasting impact on the environment. I cited extinct species as an example of humans having a permanent impact on ecosystems.

Everyone has an agenda. I just wish everyone would be forthcoming with what that agenda is...

You are projecting.

 

[Loudmouth]

How would a human in those days know if a flood was local or worldwide?

Why do you keep insisting that the flood was global?

Also, the question arises, why wouldn't a people report that their area was flooded, and why couldn't many of them occur at the same time?

What evidence do you have that they did occur at the same time?

You continuously try to shift the burden of proof. That is not how reason or logic works. If you want to claim that the entire Earth was flooded at the same time, then it is up to you to provide evidence that this is the case. It isn't up to other people to disprove a claim that has no evidence to support it.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."--Christopher Hitchens