Global Warming

[Loudmouth]

The question was not whether the evidence supporting a flood would convince the agnostic or anyone for that matter.

It would convince me. Of course, claiming to have evidence and then never presenting any is not very convincing.

That lack of belief today from say 50 yeas ago says more about human's penchant for not wanting to stand out in a crowd of people seemingly all in agreement on something than it does about the validity of the belief. There have been no major revelations from science either way regarding a flood in 50 years, only people applying a particularly modern method of criticism toward the belief. As long as no one in the crowd stands up and objects, the herd gradually moves in a the same direction, in this case unbelief. Humans will do that even if deep down they may not really agree and could easily swayed to return to holding the belief.

Geologists in the 1830's found that Noah's flood did not happen, and they were looking for evidence that it did happen. They were believers, and even they had to admit that the evidence wasn't there for a global flood.

Bearing upon this difficult question, there is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion, when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth. We saw the clearest traces of diluvial action, and we had, in our sacred histories, the record of a general deluge. On this double testimony it was, that we gave a unity to a vast succession of phenomena, not one of which we perfectly comprehended, and under the name diluvium, classed them all together.

To seek the light of physical truth by reasoning of this kind, is, in the language of Bacon, to seek the living among the dead, and will ever end in erroneous induction. Our errors were, however, natural, and of the same kind which lead many excellent observers of a former century to refer all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge. Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.

We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic flood....
(Sedgwick, 1831, p. 312-314)
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: April 2002
​

Sedwick was one of the giants of early geology.

Rather similar to the driving a herd mentality by taking weather observations and making overly confident and optimistically bold statements about the relative significance of human impact on our climate while attacking anyone who objects in any manner rather than sticking with the facts.

Scientists are sticking with the facts. It is the deniers who refuse to address the facts.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Scientists have pointed to the fact that humans have driven the CO2 from 280 ppm to over 400 ppm in just 150 years, well above any natural levels found in the last several interglacial periods. Scientists have pointed out that this is due to burning fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, people like to use epithets like "global alarmists" to hide these facts.



Massively increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere will trap more heat. It is just basic physics.



No, it wouldn't. The CO2 would still be here in 3 years when all the volcanic ash has settled.



That claim is made up. There is mountains of evidence demonstrating that the main driver for the increase in temperature over the last 150 years is due to man putting CO2 into the atmosphere.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence



Because there is evidence for AGW, and none for a global flood.

Yeah that is the argument the OP asked us NOT to dive into and we both go further than we should have. Proving that is what is driving a relatively constant rate (and very small rate) of temp change is much more difficult. Rather impolite to ignore that request. So I am out unless you want to start a why it makes sense we can start/stop/change global temperatures in any appreciable amount compared to the prime driver of our climate.

The OP invited us not to defend our view of that but explain we think why many would just swallow that belief as fact but stop believing a global flood has any basis in fact. It is not like any relevant scientific revelation has occurred in the last 50 years that would have so many people abandon the belief in a supernatural event, yet it was almost universally accepted by Christians just 50-100 years ago.

So my point was, much like the we can make it cooler crowd, people would rather just accept a current popular opinion on a flood than to seen as standing against the crowd. All it would take would be a few courageous people to stand up in a "emperor has no clothes" moment to quickly move most of the crowd in another direction, especially one then in their hearts they want to believe anyway regarding a flood and they were only swayed another way because it increasingly did not appear a popular belief.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yeah that is the argument the OP asked us NOT to dive into and we both go further than we should have.

When you imply that scientists have no evidence for global warming when, in fact, they have tons of evidence, I think it is worth pointing out.

Proving that is what is driving a relatively constant rate (and very small rate) of temp change is much more difficult.

It is really easy to prove. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increasing CO2 will trap more heat and increase temps. It is basic physics.

Rather impolite to ignore that request. So I am out unless you want to start a why it makes sense we can start/stop/change global temperatures in any appreciable amount compared to the prime driver of our climate.

CO2 has a 15 to 30 year residence time in the atmosphere. If we stop pumping it into the atmosphere the levels of CO2 will go down.

The OP invited us not to defend our view of that but explain we think why many would just swallow that belief as fact but stop believing a global flood has any basis in fact.

AGW isn't a belief. It is a fact. We have the evidence to prove it.

It is not like any relevant scientific revelation has occurred in the last 50 years that would have so many people abandon the belief in a supernatural event, yet it was almost universally accepted by Christians just 50-100 years ago.

The relevant science was discovered nearly 200 years ago.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

It would convince me. Of course, claiming to have evidence and then never presenting any is not very convincing.





Geologists in the 1830's found that Noah's flood did not happen, and they were looking for evidence that it did happen. They were believers, and even they had to admit that the evidence wasn't there for a global flood.

Bearing upon this difficult question, there is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established -- that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period. It was indeed a most unwarranted conclusion, when we assumed the contemporaneity of all the superficial gravel on the earth. We saw the clearest traces of diluvial action, and we had, in our sacred histories, the record of a general deluge. On this double testimony it was, that we gave a unity to a vast succession of phenomena, not one of which we perfectly comprehended, and under the name diluvium, classed them all together.

To seek the light of physical truth by reasoning of this kind, is, in the language of Bacon, to seek the living among the dead, and will ever end in erroneous induction. Our errors were, however, natural, and of the same kind which lead many excellent observers of a former century to refer all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge. Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.

We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic flood....
(Sedgwick, 1831, p. 312-314)
The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: April 2002
​

Sedwick was one of the giants of early geology.



Scientists are sticking with the facts. It is the deniers who refuse to address the facts.

Actually that is not an entirely accurate presentation of the belief in a flood or the criticism drawn [staff edit].

 

[Loudmouth]

Why would people accept anthropogenic global warming? Because there is tons of scientific evidence behind it.

Why would people not accept the claim that there was a global flood in the last 10,000 years? Because there is no scientific evidence to support it, and tons of scientific evidence demonstrating that no such flood occurred.

 

[SkyWriting]

Some people die of natural causes. This doesn't change the fact that some people die because of man made causes.

Just because something can happen naturally, it doesn't preclude humans as another cause.



That's usually what happens when the Earth warms and ice melts.



Because there is no world wide flood layer that dates to that time.



No, they don't. Many of those myths describe a local flood, not to mention the myths are all different from each other. They are much more consistent with local floods, which isn't surprising given the fact that many human populations live in flood plains.



Because we have evidence for sea level rises in the past, but no evidence for the entire Earth being covered by water just a few thousand years ago.

Yes. I agree.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why would people think that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? It is due to the scientific fact that CO2 absorbs IR radiation being emitted by the Earth:

CO2 absorbs heat being emitted by the Earth and keeps it from being radiated out into space. Due to the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere (15 years or more), it is able to drive long term climate trends. Water, on the other hand, has a residence time of a few weeks, meaning that H20 can not drive long term climate trends.

All of this can be confirmed in any college laboratory.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

I hope it does get warmer.
I hope people stop living in flood zones.
I hope people save some money so they can move.
I hope people like weather changes, like we enjoy in Wisconsin.
The temp dropped 20 degrees from 68 in 5 minutes the other day.

 

[Loudmouth]

RickG has often pointed to these climate models, and they are definitely worth mentioning here.

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001

Only when we add anthropogenic forcings into the models do we get a match to observations. This is massive evidence that man has been responsible for recent warming. I should also point out that these models were able to accurately model past climates, so we know that the models work.

Quoting RickG:

Note the 3 different scenarios in the models. The red line is actual observed data, that is what actually happened and the gray is the models. Scenario (a) uses only 'natural' forcings. What does it show? It shows that we cannot explain the actual warming trend with only natural forcings only, it underestimates what actually happened. Now look at scenario (b). It uses only Anthropogenic forcings. It is much closer to what actually occurred but it overstates actual observed data a little. Now look at scenario (c). It utilizes both natural and anthropogenic forcings. The results very closely match observed data. So, what do we take from this? Quite obviously, there is something going on other than just natural causes.​

 

[DrBubbaLove]

When you imply that scientists have no evidence for global warming when, in fact, they have tons of evidence, I think it is worth pointing out.



It is really easy to prove. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increasing CO2 will trap more heat and increase temps. It is basic physics.



CO2 has a 15 to 30 year residence time in the atmosphere. If we stop pumping it into the atmosphere the levels of CO2 will go down.



AGW isn't a belief. It is a fact. We have the evidence to prove it.



The relevant science was discovered nearly 200 years ago.

I think I rather clearly did not say there was no evidence it was getting warmer, in fact I rather agreed. But we go further off topic. [Staff edit].

 

[brinny]

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?

You bring up some excellent points.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Yes. I agree.

You agree on what: the flood occurred a few thousand years ago (which is odd given any creditable view of the Bible) or that is no creditable evidence for their ever being a flood?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Why would people accept anthropogenic global warming? Because there is tons of scientific evidence behind it.

Why would people not accept the claim that there was a global flood in the last 10,000 years? Because there is no scientific evidence to support it, and tons of scientific evidence demonstrating that no such flood occurred.

Missed the point of both myself and as well as the OP I think and does not address the question.

It is not a challenge to either prove or disprove either explanation of "evidence". My answer is crowd theory, along with a popular modern (since 18th century) notion of applying in our theology a method of "historical criticism" which is flawed before it starts as it cannot be open to the idea of supernatural events explaining any evidence. The only other responses I noted were attempts to defend or attack global warming, not answering the OP question.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I'm just asking why one is possible and the other is not.

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.

 

[SkyWriting]

You agree on what: the flood occurred a few thousand years ago (which is odd given any creditable view of the Bible) or that is no creditable evidence for their ever being a flood?

Other than Josh McDowell, I've never known
anyone to use an evidence based approach
to believing scripture and finding God.

 

[CrystalDragon]

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?

Easy: the flood is assumed to have happened pretty quickly and covered the entire earth. Not the case with global warming.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

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.

As we keep pointing out the problem in both cases is not a lack of data (global warming) or evidence (global flood). Warming has been addressed already.
There are sufficient sedimentary layers found globally to suggest the present of water everywhere we look. Top of Everest down to deepest valley. What is lacking for science is not evidence but a satisfactory explanation of how flooding as we naturally see it occur could account for the way we observe the state/condition of those global deposits. The answer is science can't and so must seek for other explanations for such deposits we see in the arrangement we see them, which various people have proposed competing ideas with varying levels of acceptance.

The Christian however is not limited to viewing that evidence through the lens of science because the event is believed a supernatural intervention. By definition and understanding there would be no need to assume the results of a supernatural act must follow observable natural processes. If that were required, then there would be no point in calling it a super-natural act. So denial here is not made on a lack of evidence of a global sedimentary layer, it is a dispute that the action of flooding adequately explains the arrangement/state of those deposits as science observes it and the actions of floods. The scientist is supposing only natural processes could explain the evidence and must therefore suggest various other additional natural actions in addition to sedimentary deposits, as well as various time sequences of events to explain how it all got the way we see it is. But note the evidence of sedimentary deposits is not denied, only that flooding (even global flooding) as a natural process alone cannot explain it.

So it is very much a valid question the OP asks. A faith in a Creator pretty much doing whatever He wills along with the obvious global presence of sedimentary process as evidence is free to accept/reject that evidence for what God revealed in Bible as His action (not natures), and as someone pointed out there is further support by nearly global myths of an ancient deluge. So why reject that evidence as Christians and freely accept the presentation of data for Global Warming.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

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.

Lots of assumptions there that are required to be true, biggest being that sea floors and all current relative elevations remained constant and all ground water remains always where it is. But we do not even need to go there as I granted already that science can never either prove or disprove in hindsight or even imagine a proof for a supernatural event. Science can only observe and then make connections to help explain how things came to be as we see them now. The base assumptions required to that is 1)only natural processes observed can explain what we see 2) we can assume there is little variation over time in such processes and then attempt to piece together how we can find evidence on top of Everest and in deepest valley of sediment deposits (from water). Piece together does mean prove - just create an acceptable theory to explain it. So again, there is no lack of evidence for there being such sediments globally, just an inability to see the arrangement of it as part of a supernatural event.

Last I recall part of several theories for explaining what we find in sedimentary rocks requires proposing several global extinction level events to help account for both the absence now of the animals we find there and to help explain some of the arrangements we see. Again, those theories are formed around observable natural processes and that there can be no super-natural cause for it even considered as long a natural one can be imagined to at least explain parts of it (most don't help on a global scale). They can then take those parts and attempt to piece it all together, to sort of reverse engineer how everything got the way it appears now. Lacking faith in God or His abilities o both, it is not just the best they can do, that is all they can do with the evidence. At least until they can borrow McFly's DeLorean to "prove" they are right.

 

[essentialsaltes]

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?

Because there is no evidence of it. And an event of that magnitude would leave evidence behind.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Other than Josh McDowell, I've never known
anyone to use an evidence based approach
to believing scripture and finding God.

Whose proposing one now?
Am simply pointing out you indicated agreement with a post that claimed the Bible says a flood happened a few thousand years ago, which is simply false. At best that flood is 6 to 7000 years ago perhaps longer depending on how one views the OT. And agreement that denies there could even be supernatural explanations for some things.
Again, the OP was asking Christians about abandoning evidence for a supernatural event, not evidence for natural flooding occurring globally. Don't recall what Josh believes in this regard, just that in many things he is wrong. But by your remark I could imagine him to be more less saying the same thing I have. That global sedimentary deposits exist is not deniable. That natural processes of just a global flood could explain how we see it arranged is not required of the Christians as the act is said to be supernatural, so however God wants it deposited and shaped afterwards can be whatever He Wills.

So why do you think so many Christians over the last 50 years have gone from almost universal acceptance of a global flood to maybe one of local flooding while at same time many hold a strong belief now that humans have caused and can stop the temps from rising .03-.04 degress every 100 years?