Global Warming

DrBubbaLove said:

Did any of your studies include the plant based data indicating the CO2 levels have been way off the charts at various times compared to the ice data?

Click to expand...

During the Mesozoic Era they were quite a bit higher. Climate was significantly warmer then due to the continental configuration of the time which lend itself to more vegetation with no continental glaciation or polar ice caps.

How would taking data and running with a theory that requires almost the total exclusions of other observations that are at least inconvenient if not in fact contestable and example of a pure quest for knowledge?

Click to expand...

Interesting, I would like to know what exclusions of other observations were made. Please cite a few.

Root of Jesse makes a valid point about the data leading people at various times to erroneous conclusions. Most naysayers are not doubting that it APPEARS since we have been reliably measuring the earth (less than 200 years) is warming by a rather constant overall rate perhaps close to .04 degrees per 100 years. In that time the industrial revolution emissions reached a peak in much of the western world and declined, human population and the feeding of it have sky rocketed, yet we see the rate of increase remaining steady overall.

Click to expand...

The earth rate of warming for the last 7,000 years has been at a rate 0.01 deg C per century. The rate of increase over the past 45 years is 1.7 deg C per century, a rate that is 170 times faster a century than the last 7,000 years.
(Source: Australian National University: Humans affect Earth system more than natural forces

DrBubbaLove said:

Correct. Science does not look for supernatural events, so they are not going to find any.

Click to expand...

The way in which science looks for things does not exclude the supernatural. It is the theists who refuse to let science look for the supernatural.

No one has said every sedimentary layer we can see has to be from a single event.

Click to expand...

Then how do you differentiate between supernaturally and naturally made sediments? Why not say they were all put there by magic?

And even the dating requires assumptions that may or may not always be valid for every layer to layer comparison. So the dating can be wrong.

Click to expand...

That's why you only using dating methods where they are appropriate, and why you don't use assumptions when you are doing the dating.

No one is insisting science invoke magic.

Click to expand...

Don't we trust science because it doesn't invoke magic?

I would insist that science however cannot insist that supernatural event must follow the natural observable rules and order of things. What is the point of calling something supernatural if it had to occur naturally?

Click to expand...

What is the point of calling something supernatural if all of the evidence is consistent with a natural event?

The OP asked why would Christians abandoned something that at least as some physical support . . .

Click to expand...

It doesn't. That's the problem.

You want to waffle between the supernatural not leaving any evidence to believing in Noah's flood because there is evidence. You need to pick one.

and is something which was almost universally believed 50 years ago

Click to expand...

That is also not true.

So it appears your answer, had it been given directly, to the OP is that science along with apparently accepting that "modern" historical criticism of formerly universally held Christian beliefs, probably applied to many things in the Bible, that those are acceptable foundations for Christian faith. Good, we agree on the same cause for Christians abandoning their faith.

Click to expand...

Belief in a global flood has not been a universally held belief since the late 1700's. You might as well claim that Geocentrism is a universally held belief. [Staff edit].

Loudmouth said:

Science makes no such demand. Science simply follows the evidence. It is theists who define the supernatural as being either undetectable or operating contrary to natural processes.



A subgroup of Christians do try to use science to make the claim that the flood happened.



That only begs the question of what wouldn't be evidence for a supernatural global flood? If we are talking about a supernatural flood that can do anything and can leave no evidence or evidence that looks nothing like a flood, then what exactly would disprove your belief?

It seems to me that we are talking about a dogmatic belief that is insulated from facts, not derived from facts. People are certainly free to believe what they want, but I think it is understandable that we accept the evidence for natural events which demonstrate that there was no global flood. When we wake up in the morning, go outside, and see that the ground is wet wherever we look, we don't contemplate the idea that maybe Leprechauns ran around with magic watering buckets and laid down the water. Instead, we assume it rained.



Creationists are free to believe irrational and unsupportable beliefs. We are also free to point out that they are irrational and unsupportable.

Click to expand...

Sure science does and so did you. It is implicit in saying there is no deposit anywhere indicating a naturally occurring global flood so we can conclude that there is no evidence such a natural never happened. But the implication is neither from that same evidence can anyone say a Supernatural event ever happened.
IOW unless the Christian can explain how God could create a flood that leaves no natural footprint that they can say would "naturally" occur from such an event, then no deposit anywhere and said to be at anytime can be said to be the result of such an event. And I would include dating in that remark for Christians, especially as it is more fuzzy either way as many layers occur close enough together that the accuracy of dating creates only a range that is not necessarily exclusive of a single event explaining a layer here or different layer opposite side of world as originating from a single Supernatural event. For that matter even a homogeneous single layer we would understand as occurring is not required from a single supernatural event.

No, am not arguing there is such a single layer and I understand some argue for that, but that is not me or what I have been trying to say. Simply that sediment pretty much being global, (yes except where it is not because it has been removed naturally - mmm or perhaps supernaturally). So sediment is there and some aspects of that presence could be (not natural proof of) support for a Christians belief in a single Supernatural event because it would have had to create and distribute sediment. If there were natural proof then we would be arguing not about the evidence but the cause of the event.

Loudmouth said:

The ice core data includes atmosphere that has been captured in the ice. It is a directly measurement of CO2 in past atmospheres.



What inconvenient observations?



CO2 is still rising in the atmosphere, and that CO2 is rich in 12C just like fossil fuels are. That is a direct measurement.







I already showed you the climate models which accurately modeled historic climates. This is how we know what our impact is on the climate.

Click to expand...

Am not the one claiming to be studied on the matter here perhaps they could comment.
But there is apparently plant based data which apparently in some aspects is very different than data from the ice, in both variation extremes and much higher levels. Am not qualified to comment on what that is as I have only read about it and would probably botch a presentation of it. That an education and certainly the media might not expose one to data less favorable to a popular theory I could imagine, but would hope most institutions would at least include that source of information if they were going to include mention of the ice data.

DrBubbaLove said:

Sure science does and so did you. It is implicit in saying there is no deposit anywhere indicating a naturally occurring global flood so we can conclude that there is no evidence such a natural never happened. But the implication is neither from that same evidence can anyone say a Supernatural event ever happened.

Click to expand...

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.

And I would include dating in that remark for Christians, especially as it is more fuzzy either way as many layers occur close enough together that the accuracy of dating creates only a range that is not necessarily exclusive of a single event explaining a layer here or different layer opposite side of world as originating from a single Supernatural event. For that matter even a homogeneous single layer we would understand as occurring is not required from a single supernatural event.

Click to expand...

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.

Simply that sediment pretty much being global, (yes except where it is not because it has been removed naturally - mmm or perhaps supernaturally). So sediment is there and some aspects of that presence could be (not natural proof of) support for a Christians belief in a single Supernatural event because it would have had to create and distribute sediment. If there were natural proof then we would be arguing not about the evidence but the cause of the event.

Click to expand...

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.

DrBubbaLove said:

Am not the one claiming to be studied on the matter here perhaps they could comment.
But there is apparently plant based data which apparently in some aspects is very different than data from the ice, in both variation extremes and much higher levels. Am not qualified to comment on what that is as I have only read about it and would probably botch a presentation of it. That an education and certainly the media might not expose one to data less favorable to a popular theory I could imagine, but would hope most institutions would at least include that source of information if they were going to include mention of the ice data.

Click to expand...

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

RickG said:

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

Click to expand...

A quick google search found this page, reading it now:

Stomatal data vs ice core measurements to measure CO2 levels

Added in edit: It appears that stomatal data is not very reliable, varies a lot between different geographic regions, and is most importantly not a direct measurement of atmospheric CO2 like the ice core data is.

Loudmouth said:

A quick google search found this page, reading it now:

Stomatal data vs ice core measurements to measure CO2 levels

Added in edit: It appears that stomatal data is not very reliable, varies a lot between different geographic regions, and is most importantly not a direct measurement of atmospheric CO2 like the ice core data is.

Click to expand...

Thanks Loudmouth, I just read the article. The thing I like about the peer review process is that when research is published in a scientific journal, the entire scientific community becomes a secondary review source, thus questionable data gets much more scrutiny and corrections are made. Additionally, the ice core data is a direct source, the stomatal source is an indirect proxy.

RickG said:

During the Mesozoic Era they were quite a bit higher. Climate was significantly warmer then due to the continental configuration of the time which lend itself to more vegetation with no continental glaciation or polar ice caps.


Interesting, I would like to know what exclusions of other observations were made. Please cite a few.


The earth rate of warming for the last 7,000 years has been at a rate 0.01 deg C per century. The rate of increase over the past 45 years is 1.7 deg C per century, a rate that is 170 times faster a century than the last 7,000 years.
(Source: Australian National University: Humans affect Earth system more than natural forces

Click to expand...

You would now better than us hopefully regarding the plant based data which needs to be ignored to emphasize the popular notions being thrown around. It is that data which must be ignored to make some of the claims being made.

Thanks for refuting the one someone yelled in this thread which is popular with the herd. So you verify my point that CO2 levels have indeed been much higher than they are now. Good.

Am sure if restrict data points in any number of ways we could influence the curve of a graph of those points. That some have done that to exaggerate has apparently cost some jobs and been a source of embarrassment. Not the wiki is a solid source, but you would think with the popularity of the theory it would have been at least update to show a starting increase in the rate of warming. It has not been. And from what I have read, taking all the data, the rate is lower than the number above. As the only relevant conclusion from "observed data" would seem to be what has occurred since we started observing it which does not go back 7000 years.

Have a math degree myself, so feel somewhat qualified to respond. Am not sure what value is gained by throwing into that mix of actual observed temperatures all the various calculations and approximations made to arrive at best guesses about temperatures going back 7000 years. So am not going to comment on how any curve or slope we could then graph is telling us anything at all, except that the person who would present that as "proof" really wants us to believe it proves something. A conclusion from restricting data to reach a "current slope" of something not in the least linear is also likewise much more subjective and much more convenient when the current local trend of data points was on a steeper incline. Apparently even that trend has appeared to have changed also. So like I said, the overall trend of actual observed data is much less alarming than a current local trend.
And neither rate is really indicative of what may or may not happen over the next 500 years if this world even. remains as is that long. Obviously there have been cycles of much much warmer and much much cooler repeatedly, all without any human contribution. We can agree to disagree that humans have a significant impact. I agree it would currently be a negative impact. I disagree removing all humans and cow farts immediately would change the observable trend in temperatures.
Climate will and always has changed, usually not suddenly but sometimes it has. Apparently within the span of human history it has varied greatly as well, long before industrial age and in both directions.

[Staff edit].

RickG said:

Thanks Loudmouth, I just read the article. The thing I like about the peer review process is that when research is published in a scientific journal, the entire scientific community becomes a secondary review source, thus questionable data gets much more scrutiny and corrections are made. Additionally, the ice core data is a direct source, the stomatal source is an indirect proxy.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The initial peer review process is a pretty low bar, and it should be. The real peer review is how it is received by the larger scientific community. How many times your paper is cited is often a good indicator of how important or well accepted your work is.

Loudmouth said:

Exactly. The initial peer review process is a pretty low bar, and it should be. The real peer review is how it is received by the larger scientific community. How many times your paper is cited is often a good indicator of how important or well accepted your work is.

Click to expand...

Of course it is important to understand that the stomatal data proxy's are not useless, they do provide good data. Its just that their uncertainty levels are larger than the ice cores. Here's another study.
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Root of Jesse said:

You're right, it does. But I don't know, nor does anyone, necessarily how much it means. Then again, the rains in California the last forty days were pretty devastating. If the rain were torrential, who knows how long it would take?

Click to expand...

As long as we agree that it happened that's the main thing my brother.
God bless!

DrBubbaLove said:

You would now better than us hopefully regarding the plant based data which needs to be ignored to emphasize the popular notions being thrown around. It is that data which must be ignored to make some of the claims being made.

Click to expand...

It isn't being ignored because it is inconvenient. The concentration of stomata in a leaf is an indirect measure of CO2 concentrations, and one that is affected by other factors, such as how much moisture the roots are getting. The ice core data is a direct measure of the CO2 in paleoatmospheres. It isn't a proxy. Therefore, if the two data sets disagree, then the stomatal data is tossed because it isn't as reliable a measure of past CO2.

So you verify my point that CO2 levels have indeed been much higher than they are now. Good.

Click to expand...

The time period RickG is talking about was 250 to 65 million years ago. Not only were CO2 concentrations higher, but temperatures were higher as well.

Am sure if restrict data points in any number of ways we could influence the curve of a graph of those points. That some have done that to exaggerate has apparently cost some jobs and been a source of embarrassment. Not the wiki is a solid source, but you would think with the popularity of the theory it would have been at least update to show a starting increase in the rate of warming. It has not been. And from what I have read, taking all the data, the rate is lower than the number above. As the only relevant conclusion from "observed data" would seem to be what has occurred since we started observing it which does not go back 7000 years.

Click to expand...

The ice core data goes back hundreds of thousands of years. It contains direct CO2 records and temperature proxies. If memory serves, they use oxygen and hydrogen isotopes to measure temperature. If the temperature is warmer then that extra warmth is able to evaporate off water that has heavier isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen. If you measure the change in isotopes as you move back through the ice core data you can estimate the temperature of past climates. By using the same method with periods of known temperature, you can calibrate the entire proxy record.

Have a math degree myself, so feel somewhat qualified to respond. Am not sure what value is gained by throwing into that mix of actual observed temperatures all the various calculations and approximations made to arrive at best guesses about temperatures going back 7000 years. So am not going to comment on how any curve or slope we could then graph is telling us anything at all, except that the person who would present that as "proof" really wants us to believe it proves something. A conclusion from restricting data to reach a "current slope" of something not in the least linear is also likewise much more subjective and much more convenient when the current local trend of data points was on a steeper incline. Apparently even that trend has appeared to have changed also. So like I said, the overall trend of actual observed data is much less alarming than a current local trend.
And neither rate is really indicative of what may or may not happen over the next 500 years if this world even. remains as is that long. Obviously there have been cycles of much much warmer and much much cooler repeatedly, all without any human contribution. We can agree to disagree that humans have a significant impact. I agree it would currently be a negative impact. I disagree removing all humans and cow farts immediately would change the observable trend in temperatures.
Climate will and always has changed, usually not suddenly but sometimes it has. Apparently within the span of human history it has varied greatly as well, long before industrial age and in both directions.

Click to expand...

This is why scientists look at 30 year trends instead of year to year changes.

[Staff edit].

RickG said:

Of course it is important to understand that the stomatal data proxy's are not useless, they do provide good data. Its just that their uncertainty levels are larger than the ice cores. Here's another study.
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Click to expand...

That is a good point as well. If you are trying to fill holes in data sets for certain geographic areas or time periods, bouncy data is better than no data.

RickG said:

Thanks Loudmouth, I just read the article. The thing I like about the peer review process is that when research is published in a scientific journal, the entire scientific community becomes a secondary review source, thus questionable data gets much more scrutiny and corrections are made. Additionally, the ice core data is a direct source, the stomatal source is an indirect proxy.

Click to expand...

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. Forget what that is all about too then such reviews would not be popular either. I do know those less than positive reviews of ice data exist because some people wanting to discuss it have pushed out or lost their jobs over speaking out.

What I do not agree with is that ice data says anything about our ability to SIGNIFICANTLY influence the global temperature trend. Locally, we all know standing around a paved playground as a child on a sunny day is not particular pleasant. Relative to the whole planet though that it is not saying much. A single eruption we know can spew tons more CO2 into the air than any cumulative total contributions from humans, so the idea what we do makes any appreciable difference is beyond presumptuous as is the idea we could or that we should even try to use technology to control it.

Again I can agree with your view of why so many Christians have abandoned one belief yet so easily flock to this one, And this is one I have no doubt will change again (twice already now) within my lifetime and the same folks will probably equally flock to the next crowd opinion. AlGore will probably just revise his book then and short his carbon exchange positions, so he makes money either way and no doubt will probably want the government to make us pay for the opinion either way.

DrBubbaLove said:

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. Forget what that is all about too then such reviews would not be popular either. I do know those less than positive reviews of ice data exist because some people wanting to discuss it have pushed out or lost their jobs over speaking out.

Click to expand...

The best way to detect pseudoscience is if people claim they are being persecuted for talking about the science. Over and over I hear about these people who are being persecuted like no one has ever been persecuted before, but when you ask for evidence all of the sudden these people don't exist, or the persecution never happened.

Instead of ramping up the violin solo for the poor persecuted souls, just show us the data.

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

Click to expand...

There is obviously no evidence that will ever convince you. As the old saying goes, you can't change someone's mind with evidence when they didn't arrive at their current position due to evidence.

A single eruption we know can spew tons more CO2 into the air than any cumulative total contributions from humans,

Click to expand...

That is entirely made up.

Loudmouth said:

It isn't being ignored because it is inconvenient. The concentration of stomata in a leaf is an indirect measure of CO2 concentrations, and one that is affected by other factors, such as how much moisture the roots are getting. The ice core data is a direct measure of the CO2 in paleoatmospheres. It isn't a proxy. Therefore, if the two data sets disagree, then the stomatal data is tossed because it isn't as reliable a measure of past CO2.



The time period RickG is talking about was 250 to 65 million years ago. Not only were CO2 concentrations higher, but temperatures were higher as well.



The ice core data goes back hundreds of thousands of years. It contains direct CO2 records and temperature proxies. If memory serves, the use oxygen and hydrogen isotopes to measure temperature. If the temperature is warmer then that extra warmth is able to evaporate off water that has heavier isotopes of oxygen and hydrogen. If you measure the change in isotopes as you move back through the ice core data you can estimate the temperature of past climates. By using the same method with periods of known temperature, you can calibrate the entire proxy record.



This is why scientists look at 30 year trends instead of year to year changes.



The only flaw you seem to find is that the science doesn't support the belief.

Click to expand...

Well yeah, I can read that too and a lot of stuff on the internet, am not sure why I should accept that as a scientific consensus, which in itself is not even a scientific thought. All we are talking about here is a herd mentality and the support for it. When the wind shifts the herd will go in the opposite direction, as it has twice done in my lifetime already.

Again, the fact there are actual scientists, meteorologist who also agree like me that the trend though small is upward right now, but disagree on the role we have played, are playing or even that we should play in that. We should want better and cleaner processes because that is the right thing to do, which is a fundamental Christian principle. We don't need to imagine a significant human impact on temperature to drive us to do what is right. No one in the 60s-70s was arguing for starting more fires when the herd was moving the other way on this point.

DrBubbaLove said:

Have a math degree myself, so feel somewhat qualified to respond. Am not sure what value is gained by throwing into that mix of actual observed temperatures all the various calculations and approximations made to arrive at best guesses about temperatures going back 7000 years.

Click to expand...

I was just responding to make the point that the 0.04 deg per century rate increase did not contain enough data to make a valid point for what it was suggesting.

And neither rate is really indicative of what may or may not happen over the next 500 years if this world even. remains as is that long. Obviously there have been cycles of much much warmer and much much cooler repeatedly, all without any human contribution. We can agree to disagree that humans have a significant impact. I agree it would currently be a negative impact. Climate will and always has changed, usually not suddenly but sometimes it has. Apparently within the span of human history it has varied greatly as well, long before industrial age and in both directions.

Click to expand...

We know that the climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 levels is between 3.0 and 3.5 deg. C. and we are almost at the half-way point of that doubling since the beginning of the industrial revolution with most of that temp. increase occurring over the past 45 years. Fossil fuel emissions are not slowing, they are increasing.

DrBubbaLove said:

Well yeah, I can read that too and a lot of stuff on the internet, am not sure why I should accept that as a scientific consensus, which in itself is not even a scientific thought. All we are talking about here is a herd mentality and the support for it. When the wind shifts the herd will go in the opposite direction, as it has twice done in my lifetime already.

Click to expand...

That is simply false. The conclusion is drawn from the data, from the actual evidence.

[Staff edit].

We don't need to imagine a significant human impact on temperature to drive us to do what is right. No one in the 60s-70s was arguing for starting more fires when the herd was moving the other way on this point.

Click to expand...

We don't need to imagine a significant human impact on temperature. We can observe it happening.

Loudmouth said:

The best way to detect pseudoscience is if people claim they are being persecuted for talking about the science. Over and over I hear about these people who are being persecuted like no one has ever been persecuted before, but when you ask for evidence all of the sudden these people don't exist, or the persecution never happened.

Instead of ramping up the violin solo for the poor persecuted souls, just show us the data.



There is obviously no evidence that will ever convince you. As the old saying goes, you can't change someone's mind with evidence when they didn't arrive at their current position due to evidence.


That is entirely made up.

Click to expand...

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 frequently suggests a sudden event while humans remained, and so on. Are there opposing natural explanations for such things? 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.