Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And you should have gone to the more reliable sites that turned up:
Not one valid site. At least try to find some peer reviewed articles that support your claims. Here is a hint, when scientists avoid peer review it is usually because they have a very reasonable fear that they are wrong.
In my very first post in this thread I mentioned the 10,000 year anomaly of the 100,000 year cycle and you have just alluded to it yourself as if it was something you were introducing. I am very well aware of the Holocene period, thank you, but I refrained from naming it to avoid anyone thinking that it was just a time period. It takes no imagination at all to see that the Holocene is an irrelevant anomaly in Earth's past. To treat that brief period as the 'norm' is extraordinarily short-sighted. Why on earth (literally) would anyone select that very brief 10,000 year period out of the previous million of years and treat it as the norm?
You have not been able to ask any proper questions. Blaming me for your lack is not proper. You appear to be jealous of those that can do the science and are merely looking for excuses not to believe. This is not how science is done.
Oh dear, I'm sorry if I'm not asking you the right questions. Maybe that explains why you only seem interested in making a quick search and providing links to someone else's ideas.
No SZ, that is not how science is done.
Oh dear, I'm sorry if I'm not asking you the right questions. Maybe that explains why you only seem interested in making a quick search and providing links to someone else's ideas.
I am sure you will understand that gives the unfortunate impression that you don't actually know the answers yourself. Let me help you therefore by posing a couple of questions related to a subject on which you were bold enough to express an opinion of your own.
You said,
Your words, "I still consider" indicate that you have formed your own opinion - well done. You are actually referring to the Holocene and the bounce back from the Younger Dynas. You claimed earlier that was a period of "equilibrium" and implied that period was the 'normal' condition for planet earth - when we all know that it certainly was not. Climate scientists often misleadingly refer to a VERY brief 4-5,000 year period of the Holocene as the Holocene Optimum or Holocene Climatic Optimum (and various other terms). They have selected the only flat trend line through the Holocene fluctuations, effectively a random 4-5,000 year period, and temperature variation from that flat line are misleadingly referred to as temperature 'anomalies'. The problem is, any 5 year old can look at the temperature graphs for the last 800,000 years and see that the Holocene itself is the anomaly. There are no equivalent periods of stability, or "equilibrium" as you put it, in the last 800,000 years, at the very least. Not at ANY temperature.
Now my very simple questions:
1. Why do YOU consider that brief period of "equilibrium" to be 'normal' when we know beyond doubt that temperatures have fluctuated widely in a very clear 100,000 year cycle without any previous states of equilibrium?
2. What do YOU think is the optimum OR the normal temperature for planet earth - and why?
3. If there is no 'normal' temperature, and there isn't, how can we know what the temperature would be if it were not for the influence of mankind? I don't expect you to provide the calculations but let's see just an outline of the maths you would use to prove it.
One last observation: It is interesting that an atheist comes to a Christian forum and accuses me of "merely looking for excuses not to believe". Honestly Subduction Zone, have you been 'corrupted'? Do you really think that science is a matter of belief?
An honest discussion? That was indeed exactly what I wanted. Dishonest techniques? Really SZ (pot and kettle!)? I have been perfectly clear and open right from the start. Perhaps it was someone else who was being dishonest.
Yes, that was a good one. 
An honest discussion? That was indeed exactly what I wanted. Dishonest techniques? Really SZ (pot and kettle!)? I have been perfectly clear and open right from the start. Perhaps it was someone else who was being dishonest.
I'm sorry to publicly embarrass you by asking you questions beyond your ability but you did pretend to be knowledgeable. Can I suggest that you think a little more for yourself and stop relying upon links that you seem not to understand. I deliberately raised issues at a very low level to give you a fair chance. They really were not complicated questions but you still couldn't answer them nor understand the basic physics.
You may insult people all you want but I spent many years teaching meteorology, physics and aeronautics and it is pretty clear from your evasive responses that I know rather more than you imply. I gave you plenty of clues on that yet you still were determined to pretend to be more knowledgeable than you really are. Stop blustering SZ, you are embarrassing yourself more and more.
"merely looking for excuses not to believe"
More poor arguments using equivocation fallacies.Sorry to show you up again but your words reveal such gross misunderstandings that I feel it my duty to try to help you.
"You are looking for excuses not to believe........If you had a scientific belief you could support it with evidence..." - There is no such thing as "scientific belief" SZ. Any real scientist would be ashamed of your words. Before you start wriggling, an hypothesis is not a 'belief'.
".... instead of complaining about the science you do not understand" - I have absolutely no idea what you think I do not understand. You have not told me a single thing but simply directed me to other people's work that you seem not to have understood yourself (pot & kettle).
"When I use colloquial speech you complain" - I have not complained about colloquial speech, quite the opposite. I made it clear from the outset that I wanted to start off the discussion at a simple level and then dig down to a more complex level if you seemed to be knowledgeable enough. Unfortunately you couldn't manage the simple level using everyday language and school-boy physics.
"When I demand that you support your claims you run away" - I have made no claims at all.
I displayed some VERY well known graphs and I have explained why water vapour can be a self sustaining greenhouse gas. If you are not aware of those graphs, you obviously have not done much research into global warming! I described the water vapour effect in the simplest of terms and did not even complicate it with ice-melt, the effect of irrigation & rain falling on an increasingly warm planet and even subduction(!) of water. None of that requires 'support' SZ, it is simple basic physics that ANY scientist could readily understand. You have had ample opportunity to explain where I was wrong, in your opinion, but you did not. Perhaps you are a little shy about displaying the true level of your knowledge. I wonder why
"I have supported my claims" - No SZ, you have not made any claims. All you have done is point to other people's work that you have apparently accepted as your 'belief'. There is no room for 'belief' in science SZ. Perhaps that explains why you are lurking on a Christian forum .
There you go again, confusing science with 'belief'. If you want to talk about belief, there are plenty of other topics on this forum where belief is perfectly legitimate. Science has nothing to do with 'belief'.
More dishonest quoting out of context. The problem is that all you have is belief. That was my point. You want to believe, you do not want to learn.
