Global Warming

[Loudmouth]

That such agreement with science says nothing about what a Supernatural event can or cannot do I would think even an educated atheist would have to agree.

Your own claims contradict this argument. You are claiming that a supernatural flood would leave sediments just like a natural flood would.

As the thread was suppose to be asking Christians why (with a relatively short time within my life) they would abandon a once pretty much universally held belief but flock behind Global Warming, I can accept herd theory explains it even from an atheist view.

For the same reason that they abandoned the previously widely held belief that the Sun moved about the Earth in a circular orbit.

 

[Loudmouth]

We have moved past the point of painting all those in disagreement as people that deny it is getting warmer. Same post the "Oh wow" was made to gives nod to the observation that glaciers have been and remain in retreat before there was an industrial revolution to supposedly "start" that.

The real evidence is the sudden spike in carbon dioxide that is rich in 12C, indicating that the massive increase in carbon dioxide is due to burning fossil fuels. With this undeniable evidence in hand, it is also an undeniable conclusion that our atmosphere will capture more heat and that temperatures will rise without some other coincidental natural compensation, such as the Sun suddenly becoming cooler.

 

[Loudmouth]

it was alluding to what the herd was doing then applies to what the herd is doing now.

The herd tends to follow facts, such as the fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

 

[Loudmouth]

For those who are interested, there is a peer reviewed poll of actual climatologists.

"90% of respondents with more than 10 climate-related peer-reviewed publications (about half of all respondents), explicitly agreed with anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) being the dominant driver of recent global warming."
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es501998e

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Your own claims contradict this argument. You are claiming that a supernatural flood would leave sediments just like a natural flood would.



For the same reason that they abandoned the previously widely held belief that the Sun moved about the Earth in a circular orbit.

Yes, any flood of water we can observe leaves evidence including sediments. I see no reason to presume a Supernatural flood would not leave sediments, but Omnipotence rather implies He could do that if He wanted to - Supernatural supervac I guess. And Omnipotence would be the point of saying if there was a Supernatural global flood there is no reason to suggest the layer of sediments deposited must appear exactly as it would in a natural flood.

If the flood Noah experienced was natural, what would be the point of saying God did it?
So yes, sediments everywhere. Even science agrees at one time or another, often multiple times we can point to what appears to us as obviously a presence of water being over what we observe now. Even if we have to point to where the sediment covering a particular bedrock that is now exposed went, we have found where it went and so can say we know it appears sediment was deposited there at one time or another. If I recall correctly there is a great plains to Grand Canyon example of this, forget what it is called, said to be like a trail of sediment layer formerly covering bedrock now exposed in Canada, New England and I think even from across the Atlantic.

Anyway, the disagreement only comes about because science claims layers of sediment being laid down in the manner they appear now to us, cannot be attributed in any UNDERSTANDABLE way to a naturally occurring global flood. Am not in disagreement there as I am not talking about a natural event.

Conflating wrong ideas with a matter of faith is not particularly hard to do or convincing. Many cultures expressed the movement of heavenly bodies as they appeared, we still talk today as if the sun "rises" and "sets". So it can hardly be said such expression always indicates anything more than a belief in what we can observe. As our observations got keener and our abilities better, those beliefs were corrected. Geologist have long ago been telling us there is no evidence of a natural global flood. The OP specifically asks why within our lifetime have Christians abandoned what was practically universal in my childhood. There have been no great geological discovers banishing a natural global flood in my lifetime - that concept was pretty well dashed before I existed. It actually started not long after the first person observed that evidence of aquatic life can be found practically everywhere on dry land.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The real evidence is the sudden spike in carbon dioxide that is rich in 12C, indicating that the massive increase in carbon dioxide is due to burning fossil fuels. With this undeniable evidence in hand, it is also an undeniable conclusion that our atmosphere will capture more heat and that temperatures will rise without some other coincidental natural compensation, such as the Sun suddenly becoming cooler.

that is the theory. The debate is on the level of impact our negative contribution makes and also by corollary whether we can do anything at all about the warming should we reduce our negative impact (which many of us have in my lifetime). The sun is always going to be the biggest driver of our climate.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The herd tends to follow facts, such as the fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

So the herd was not following facts in the 70s but it must be following facts now. And how exactly does most of the herd "know" this?

Am not sure herding behavior has ever been a statement about facts and I was not using it to suggest that. It is a statement about human nature when exposed to numbers of relatively unknown "other" people. We tend not to want to stick out from what everyone else is or APPEARS (to us) to be doing. At least in general until someone has a "emperor has no clothes" moment, which can move others to react differently than they were before. People will stand around all hearing screams of someone burning to death, so it is a fact they know someone is burning alive or about to.

All it takes is the courage of one person to start running toward the building and at least one more or probably several of those standing around listening will follow. That has nothing to do with being in denial that someone might be burning alive. Just like I see way more of my friends supporting Trump now than those of us who did so before he won the Republican primaries, they even claim to have voted for him then and in the general - but they did not want to rock the boat until more of their friends appeared to be in agreement.

Apparently the assumed levels of feedback factor contributing to temperature changes from CO2 levels does not get as much press, and is a rather required assumption as a positive constant to achieve the alarming results some alarmist cry over. At least in my layman's understanding of that factor. The reason it does not get a lot of the herd's press is because it is not something that is demonstrably measurable and not an assumption as easily supported as simple CO2 levels. But it is required to be assumed true, not just true but also must also be massively huge in its contribution to temperature in comparison to direct contribution from CO2 levels, otherwise we do not get models that predict the changes the alarmist could cry over.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, any flood of water we can observe leaves evidence including sediments.

How can you claim that a supernatural flood would leave sediments? How do you know this?

If the flood Noah experienced was natural, what would be the point of saying God did it?

What is the point of telling God that he isn't allowed to act through nature?

So yes, sediments everywhere.

No. You already said that no one can say what a supernatural flood will do. That's the problem with using magic as an explanation.

Anyway, the disagreement only comes about because science claims layers of sediment being laid down in the manner they appear now to us, cannot be attributed in any UNDERSTANDABLE way to a naturally occurring global flood. Am not in disagreement there as I am not talking about a natural event.

The evidence is consistent with natural floods over billions of years. When you have evidence that is consistent with a natural process, you don't invoke magic and then claim it will produce evidence that is indistinguishable from natural processes.

Conflating wrong ideas with a matter of faith is not particularly hard to do or convincing.

And yet here you are doing just that.

 

[Loudmouth]

that is the theory.

That is the observation. We observe that CO2 absorbs heat.

The debate is on the level of impact our negative contribution makes and also by corollary whether we can do anything at all about the warming should we reduce our negative impact (which many of us have in my lifetime).

We have people in this thread denying the very idea that increasing greenhouse gases will increase temperature.

The sun is always going to be the biggest driver of our climate.

Not anymore it isn't. The temperature is following CO2 right now.

 

[Loudmouth]

So the herd was not following facts in the 70s but it must be following facts now.

It was following the facts in the 70's.

And how exactly does most of the herd "know" this?

It's called "learning things". [Staff edit].

Apparently the assumed levels of feedback factor contributing to temperature changes from CO2 levels does not get as much press, and is a rather required assumption as a positive constant to achieve the alarming results some alarmist cry over.

There are people in this very thread who deny the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Even if we have the feedback wrong by a little, the fact remains that increasing CO2 will trap more heat.

 

[Aldebaran]

The real evidence is the sudden spike in carbon dioxide that is rich in 12C, indicating that the massive increase in carbon dioxide is due to burning fossil fuels. With this undeniable evidence in hand, it is also an undeniable conclusion that our atmosphere will capture more heat and that temperatures will rise without some other coincidental natural compensation, such as the Sun suddenly becoming cooler.

If that's the case, where did the "catastrophic" loss of the glaciers that covered most of north america come from? No factories or SUVs around at that time.

 

[Loudmouth]

If that's the case, where did the "catastrophic" loss of the glaciers that covered most of north america come from?

The Milankovitch cycles, which involve interplay between Earth's axial tilt and orbit. That is the driving force behind Earth's natural warming and cooling trend. Part of that process is the release of CO2 from the oceans as they warm. This amplifies the warming caused by changes in Earth's orbit and tilt.

We are currently in a period called an interglacial. By pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere we will warm the Earth past what the natural processes are able to do.

 

[Aldebaran]

The Milankovitch cycles, which involve interplay between Earth's axial tilt and orbit. That is the driving force behind Earth's natural warming and cooling trend. Part of that process is the release of CO2 from the oceans as they warm. This amplifies the warming caused by changes in Earth's orbit and tilt.

We are currently in a period called an interglacial. By pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere we will warm the Earth past what the natural processes are able to do.

Even if that's true, I'm sure we'll adjust to it just fine, just as we've been able to adjust to the fact that all the glaciers that once covered all of Canada and the upper half of the United States are all tragically melted away.

 

[Loudmouth]

Even if that's true, I'm sure we'll adjust to it just fine,

That' doesn't change the fact that humans are causing a rise in global temperatures, contrary to the claims made by the science deniers.

You guys think you can just jump from one contradictory claim to the next. It's not going to work. You can't claim one minute that man isn't causing global warming, then the next minute claim that humans are causing warming but it's no big deal, and then finally jumping back to claiming humans aren't causing any warming.

just as we've been able to adjust to the fact that all the glaciers that once covered all of Canada and the upper half of the United States are all tragically melted away.

The Sahara used to be very fertile, grassy plain. Not so much anymore. If the fertile Midwest of the US turned into the driest desert in the world, would that bother you? Would you just say, "We'll adjust"?

 

[Aldebaran]

That' doesn't change the fact that humans are causing a rise in global temperatures, contrary to the claims made by the science deniers.

You guys think you can just jump from one contradictory claim to the next. It's not going to work. You can't claim one minute that man isn't causing global warming, then the next minute claim that humans are causing warming but it's no big deal, and then finally jumping back to claiming humans aren't causing any warming.

Some of us guys realize after 11 pages of this thread along with countless other threads that there's no point in arguing with the global warming/global cooling/climate change alarmists. You've got your theories and nothing will change them, no matter what evidence is presented, or no matter how faulty your own evidence is shown to be.

The Sahara used to be very fertile, grassy plain. Not so much anymore. If the fertile Midwest of the US turned into the driest desert in the world, would that bother you? Would you just say, "We'll adjust"?

It doesn't matter what I'd say. What matters is that the earth goes through cycles, and that we don't know everything there is to know. It's part of learning. Once we get our pet theories and aren't willing to accept anything else, then the learning process stops as well.

 

[Loudmouth]

Some of us guys realize after 11 pages of this thread along with countless other threads that there's no point in arguing with the global warming/global cooling/climate change alarmists.

Yet another lie that science deniers tell.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

You've got your theories and nothing will change them, no matter what evidence is presented, or no matter how faulty your own evidence is shown to be.

Show me a CO2 absorption spectrum where CO2 does not absorb photons with wavelengths in the IR spectrum. Can you do that?

Or do you agree that CO2 absorbs light in the IR spectrum?

It doesn't matter what I'd say.

It matters to me when people lie about the science in order to push a political and cultural agenda.

What matters is that the earth goes through cycles, and that we don't know everything there is to know.

We do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

We do know that increasing the concentration of a greenhouse gas traps more heat.

We do know that trapping more heat raises temperatures.

The problem is that you refuse to accept what we do know.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

How can you claim that a supernatural flood would leave sediments? How do you know this?



What is the point of telling God that he isn't allowed to act through nature?



No. You already said that no one can say what a supernatural flood will do. That's the problem with using magic as an explanation.



The evidence is consistent with natural floods over billions of years. When you have evidence that is consistent with a natural process, you don't invoke magic and then claim it will produce evidence that is indistinguishable from natural processes.



And yet here you are doing just that.

What part of

I see no reason to presume a Supernatural flood would not leave sediments, but Omnipotence rather implies He could do that if He wanted to - Supernatural supervac I guess.

was not understood?

Nothing in my posts limits God, so why ask me if He couldn't act through nature?

I could suppose some grand design (not my idea as it has been done) whereby a meteor breaks an ice shield formerly encasing a very pleasantly warm globally earth raining radioactive waters down on the earth causing the the deluge, even propose the radioactivity addressing problems with dating sediment layers. Am not sure that actually works in any effective sense as a natural event that would adequately explain a single layer science could point to and say gee look there was global thread. But there have been Christians proposing something along those lines. Am not a fan, as it presumes a lot about how such a flood could be done more "naturally" without actually fulling making the evidence naturally understandable.

Magicians would justifiably take exception to the comparison of their art to Supernatural acts, as would Christians. [Staff edit].

No one is invoking magic, there was no slight hand involved in my posting. The evidence is consistent with not just floods but also oceans covering areas that are now high and dry. That science suggests there are natural events which COULD explain all of it has not been disputed - that is claim. Claiming they have explained it all adequately is another matter, and competing theories on various points suggests as much. The rope a dope slight of hand argument would be the fact they can adequately attempt to explain any of it means they can correctly explain all of it. Science does not deal in proving something to be true, but answering how could it have happened.

The only person in this thread conflating wrong ideas with a matter of faith was the one comparing ideas about the order of the universe with a matter of faith in a global flood. Am aware of no reputable Church, in fact no Church until very modern times, that made earth orbits and rotations matters of faith. Science can prove the earth is round and orbits the sun, but those have never been matters of faith anyway. That the Bible is inerrant is a matter of faith, but often not understood in application by even the faithful. The political debates surrounding a good friend of the Pope resulting in his confinement to a rather plush house arrest complete with uncommon service for that day was not about the truth of the matter. The justifiable concern and reason for confinement was, especially with education still as limited as it was, that some of the faithful could foolishly be tricked into abandoning their faith should some less than scrupulous person suggest the Bible cannot be trusted. The concept of inerrancy could be wrongly conflated with containing no errors. If a faith in an inerrant Bible was understood when the above statement was made, this point would prove that such less than scrupulous people are still around.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

That is the observation. We observe that CO2 absorbs heat.



We have people in this thread denying the very idea that increasing greenhouse gases will increase temperature.



Not anymore it isn't. The temperature is following CO2 right now.

Believe the more apparent and therefore predictable effect of increasing upper atmospheric CO2 is the reflection downward toward the earth of more energy from the sun. The absorption and association reflection back downward of heat otherwise headed away from the planet would be a part of the "feedback" effect. We can only assume values for the feedback and adjust models to see which best explains past observations to allow the best future predictions. These feedbacks are the result of internal processes that can be negative or positive factors in contributions to temperatures, values that do not always appear to remain constant in total and are no where near as measurable or understood as CO2 refraction of sunlight. Which means, as we should imagine, makes meteorology from the resulting modeling what many of call it - weather guessing.

In alarmist models the feedback factor is the largest factor contributing to projected increase in temperatures. Believe I have seen the number of 3 times the influence of the directly observable and reasonably estimable CO2 contribution to temperature. So much so that if the feedback portion is totally removed the resulting change attributable to CO2 would hardly make people yawn, much less lose sleep. It is the assumed accuracy of the feedback factor which most of the doubting scientist appear to question.

Am not one of those people claiming there is no evidence it is getting warmer. Perhaps these comments could directed at the correct poster. We also have alarmist in this thread attempting to paint the debate as against people saying it is not getting warmer. Both extreme coloring and simplistic views of the matter are overstatements.

Temperature may be said to be "following" CO2 levels right now, but that does not negate the sun as the largest contributor to our climate. The energy from the sun is what is driving any greenhouse effect.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

It was following the facts in the 70's.



It's called "learning things". [Staff edit].



There are people in this very thread who deny the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Even if we have the feedback wrong by a little, the fact remains that increasing CO2 will trap more heat.

Am confused. We are asked to believe the current popular atmospheric models produce "facts" about climate change. Now it is suggested the models from the 70s were also considered to produce "facts" about climate change. Yet we both know those models in the 60-70s were wrong. So how is this help support the idea the herd should accept the "facts" about some climate models now?

Following the herd is not a matter of knowing or learning something. It is a matter of personal convenience and not having to make any choice, just follow. Some of the herd might educate themselves on a matter, but that has nothing to do with people tend to follow the herd EVEN if they know the direction the herd has taken is wrong.

Again, yes we know the greenhouse effect reflects more of the sun's energy toward the planet. We can measure on a micro scale and then estimate apparently a fairly accurate factor for what the contribution to that reflection from C02 would be. The problem is that factor alone does not change temperature very much at all, even over long periods. It is apparently the related feedback factors which are the far, far, far greater larger contributors. Because of the complexity of those factors, both in variability, predictability, and observability, we can in no way be certain of the accuracy of those factors like we can with the reflections of energy cause by CO2 levels. And we need those feedback factors to be accurate for any resulting model to be accurate in predictions. My understanding is much of the doubting science goes to the accuracy of those factors and the overstating of the results of predictions using them as if those feedbacks were both fully understood and understood as constants in amount and direction of influence.

 

[USincognito]

it was alluding to what the herd was doing then applies to what the herd is doing now.

Don't be so coy. What was the "herd" doing then?