Why worry about global warming?

[[serious]]

Just on the off chance you weren't sure, he's citing that number because that's when he believed the global flood happened (using Ussher's chronology), at which time there was some sort of split between the spiritual and physical, and no observations before that time can be taken seriously as a result.

Oh yes it likely was. Your site brings out various retreats of ice...whoopee do. That is mostly fact. It tosses out some silly dates with no basis, which no intelligent person would accept. That part is the false science part.

In fact, kids, here is a test, so you can see right away what is so called science.. If it tosses out dates older than 6000 years it IS NOT REAL SCIENCE, and of course is belief. That is what has been forced on schools...

The last ice age ended last thursday. Everything else is embeded age.

 

[dad]

The last ice age ended last thursday. Everything else is embeded age.

It ended? Thanks for the update.

 

[dad]

It isn't belief, its what is observed.

Then it should be easy to show us here and now! An example can be gravity working in deep space. Doing something like causing lensing......how do you prove it is gravity bending the light? Really?

Its your own belief that is questionable. Because observation of how gravity interacts with the passage of light verifies that the universe has the same space/time properties throughout and through history over billions of light years.

Where is this interaction?? Earth? Let's see it! If you are right we can move on, and accept the point. I am not unreasonable. My ideas do not depend on this issue in any way.

If you have some other hypothesis with evidence to the contrary, then please get it peer reviewed and I am sure you could become very famous.

Global warming? Well, all we have data for is what several hundred years? Why would a warming trend not exist if the big freeze, say was soon after the flood? Why would man's science not be accelerating the trend? So what? I have no issue with that.

 

[Tim the Plumber]

From the link you posted showing how the IPCC's predictions match reality.

The link is to a climate science journal. It's conclusion is that the data does not match the predictions of the IPCC. The temperature has not risen by anything like the expectations of the IPCC.

You say that a doubling of CO2 will somehow cause an increase of 3 degrees (c or f?) how long do you think it will take us to double the amount of CO2 in the air?

I understand that you like to say that the systems are highly complex. However so is the heat budget of a house if you wish to model it in extreem detail. I can make simple assesments of how big a radiator needs to be in each room if I am happy to be accurate to 90% and add a bit. I could do an hour's work to get it to 95% or a day's to get it to 98%. But I just put a slightly bigger rad than necessary in. So the thermal forcing thing is simple for me to understand to an accuracy of 90%. It's all I need. The term thermal forcing is describing the effects of increased CO2 on the bit of the earth we live in:- the surface. It takes into account all the detail of whatever happens at high altitude. There can be no multiplieing of thermal forcing it's already taken those factors into account.

 

[Mikecpking]

Then it should be easy to show us here and now! An example can be gravity working in deep space. Doing something like causing lensing......how do you prove it is gravity bending the light? Really?

Since you missed the link on the previous page, here it is again:

Gravitational lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where is this interaction?? Earth? Let's see it! If you are right we can move on, and accept the point. I am not unreasonable. My ideas do not depend on this issue in any way.

Well, please reason with us all why the contents of this link is wrong? The interaction has been spotted by the hubble telescope and other ground based aparatus to show that light does bend around high mass bodies. So the speed of light and gravity have the same properties in deep space as they do here.

Global warming? Well, all we have data for is what several hundred years? Why would a warming trend not exist if the big freeze, say was soon after the flood? Why would man's science not be accelerating the trend? So what? I have no issue with that.

We have data going back longer than that going back many 10s of thousands of years. The 'flood' was at the end of the last ice age (120 metre sea level rise) and since then, the planet is in what one would call an interglacial period. But, because CO2 is being released artificially by mankind's use of fossil fuels is changing it.

 

[Chalnoth]

From the link you posted showing how the IPCC's predictions match reality.

Yes, as I said, that was a link I dug up that I believe is probably the source of the dishonest graph that you posted. I do not think that website is anything but denialist drivel.

The link is to a climate science journal. It's conclusion is that the data does not match the predictions of the IPCC. The temperature has not risen by anything like the expectations of the IPCC.

That is not a journal. That is a blog. A blog of a private person who I think is completely and utterly wrong.

You say that a doubling of CO2 will somehow cause an increase of 3 degrees (c or f?) how long do you think it will take us to double the amount of CO2 in the air?

I don't know. Go look it up the various emissions scenarios. I'm not going to hold your hand.

Current IPCC estimates place us at around 3C or so warming by 2100. Because warming lags emissions, the total warming from greenhouse gases emitted before 2100 is likely to produce more warming in later decades. But because CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas, it may or may not double by that time.

There can be no multiplieing of thermal forcing it's already taken those factors into account.

You're not understanding the terminology. Radiative forcing doesn't take into account the fast feedbacks. Climate sensitivity does.

 

[dad]

Since you missed the link on the previous page, here it is again:

Gravitational lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope, I do not see anything but storytelling here. Can you point out something in the link that proves that the lensing has to be caused by gravity? After all I am not disputing that bending goes on. Why wouldn't it, from a fishbowl perspective??

Well, please reason with us all why the contents of this link is wrong? The interaction has been spotted by the hubble telescope and other ground based aparatus to show that light does bend around high mass bodies.

Again, bending goes on...so? As for 'massive' bosies that depends on space being our space with our laws and just physical matter in it all through the universe! That is NOT known in any way! Really. That means that the distance is not known, which means, class...what? Right, the size is not really known. You just added one more unknown, that doesn't help your belief system imposed on the universe.

So the speed of light and gravity have the same properties in deep space as they do here.

Says...who? Why? See above. Now, if different state light (or even our light) encountered spiritual mass, could that cause a bending? Who knows? Why assume that a force that we know on earth (gravity) does all things far away??? Makes no sense unless there is proof?

We have data going back longer than that going back many 10s of thousands of years.

No. None. You have a belief that our laws (and therefore decay) existed long long ago. Meaningless.

The 'flood' was at the end of the last ice age (120 metre sea level rise) and since then, the planet is in what one would call an interglacial period.

Says who?? Source for dates??? I don't believe you.

But, because CO2 is being released artificially by mankind's use of fossil fuels is changing it.

Changing from what? We are IN a change, so we would need to know the start and end! If we map the trajectory of an ant for one inch from a lollipop on the grass, does that mean we can assume the direction it will be in 300 yards?? Of course not. We are working with limited data!

 

[Mikecpking]

Nope, I do not see anything but storytelling here. Can you point out something in the link that proves that the lensing has to be caused by gravity? After all I am not disputing that bending goes on. Why wouldn't it, from a fishbowl perspective??


Again, bending goes on...so? As for 'massive' bosies that depends on space being our space with our laws and just physical matter in it all through the universe! That is NOT known in any way! Really. That means that the distance is not known, which means, class...what? Right, the size is not really known. You just added one more unknown, that doesn't help your belief system imposed on the universe.



Says...who? Why? See above. Now, if different state light (or even our light) encountered spiritual mass, could that cause a bending? Who knows? Why assume that a force that we know on earth (gravity) does all things far away??? Makes no sense unless there is proof?




No. None. You have a belief that our laws (and therefore decay) existed long long ago. Meaningless.


Says who?? Source for dates??? I don't believe you.



Changing from what? We are IN a change, so we would need to know the start and end! If we map the trajectory of an ant for one inch from a lollipop on the grass, does that mean we can assume the direction it will be in 300 yards?? Of course not. We are working with limited data!

put your hypothesis onto paper and prove the rest of science wrong.
I am sure you can substantiate your claims. Hubble is outside our 'gold fish bowl'.
You could be the next Einstein!

 

[dad]

put your hypothesis onto paper and prove the rest of science wrong.
I am sure you can substantiate your claims. Hubble is outside our 'gold fish bowl'.
You could be the next Einstein!

Knowing the limits of what we know is not a hypothesis. It is absolute indisputable fact.

Knowing that the bible has data on the dark unknown stuff of so called science is also a fact.

Progress is possible.

 

[Jazer]

The last ice age ended last thursday. Everything else is embeded age.

If it ended on Thursday then why is there still ice? If all the ice was melted isn't the ocean suppose to be 240 feet higher? That would have flooded out a lot of cities. In fact most of Flordia would be gone. Should we cancel our winter vaccation plans?

 

[keith99]

I'm not sure if global warming exists or not, but Al Gore seems to think it does. He's probably right though, cause it would fit in with the bible. The rapture is coming. We shouldn't worry tho because Jesus is going to take all the believers to heaven. Why can't science understand this? It don't matter if the planet dies because there will be noone left on it!

Which makes dealing with Global warming all the more important! Do you want to face God and hear 'Well done good and faithful servant' or 'You trashed my creation, depart from me you faithless tool'.

 

[Mikecpking]

Knowing the limits of what we know is not a hypothesis. It is absolute indisputable fact.

Knowing that the bible has data on the dark unknown stuff of so called science is also a fact.

Progress is possible.

So why do we observe gravitational lensing?

Please explain your facts?

Please then get them peer reviewed.

 

[dad]

So why do we observe gravitational lensing?
....

IF we did it would be because of gravity. But do we? Or do we merely see 'lensing' or bending of light caused by we know not what!??

 

[Tim the Plumber]

IF we did it would be because of gravity. But do we? Or do we merely see 'lensing' or bending of light caused by we know not what!??

If you take a photo of the stars around the sun, a tricky task without expensive equipment and experience, you will see the same star on different sides of the sun.

This is because the sun acts like a lense.

The sun is a little less than 8 light minutes away. It takes a little over 15 minutes for a radar pulse to bounce back off it.

The equaisions of relativity are needed to allow GPS systems to work. Without this understanding the system would not work.

 

[Tim the Plumber]

Chalnoth,

If you have data showing that the earth is warming in line with the IPCC's predictions please show me.

Although of course even if it is warming in line with those predictions we have nothing to worry about unless you will be flooded by a 30cm sea level increase.

 

[SharonL]

Wonder why we have not heard anything about this:

New Study of NASA Data May Debunk Global Warming Predictions


Debunks all the lies about global warming. All that money that went into it - the billions Al Gore sucked out of the economy, light bulbs that we don't want, toy cars we don't like, millions and millions spent to protect our environment - polar bears drowning (that arn't) - I heard today that Al Gore was being stripped of his science license, I wonder if they give back the Nobel Prize money -

Source: The Blaze - article on line now.

 

[dad]

If you take a photo of the stars around the sun, a tricky task without expensive equipment and experience, you will see the same star on different sides of the sun.

Irrelevant! Your point is that in our earth area, our laws do stuff. Of course they do. Let's take it far far away now! Again, what reason is there to assume that only our earth laws and forces apply there...not here?

The equaisions of relativity are needed to allow GPS systems to work. Without this understanding the system would not work.

Irrelevant! No one asked if our laws work here, one would assume they do. Now stick your clock or gps in far far stars, and see what happens!

 

[Chalnoth]

Chalnoth,

If you have data showing that the earth is warming in line with the IPCC's predictions please show me.

I already presented it. See here:
http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport

The relevant information can be found in figure 3 on page 9.

Of course, this is from a different assessment report. It's just more up to date, showing that the third assessment report (released in 2001) quite accurately predicted the temperature over the past decade. But if you look at some of the other plots, it dramatically underestimated many of the effects of this temperature rise, such as the rise in sea levels.

The primary takeaway of this report, by the way, is that the effects of the same rise in temperature are quite a bit worse than we thought in 2001.

Although of course even if it is warming in line with those predictions we have nothing to worry about unless you will be flooded by a 30cm sea level increase.

And why do you believe that the increase would only be 30cm?

 

[Chalnoth]

Wonder why we have not heard anything about this:

New Study of NASA Data May Debunk Global Warming Predictions


Debunks all the lies about global warming. All that money that went into it - the billions Al Gore sucked out of the economy, light bulbs that we don't want, toy cars we don't like, millions and millions spent to protect our environment - polar bears drowning (that arn't) - I heard today that Al Gore was being stripped of his science license, I wonder if they give back the Nobel Prize money -

Source: The Blaze - article on line now.

Please link to a source when you're trying to present it. But I believe this is what you're talking about:
University of Alabama Researcher Dr. Roy Spencer Finds NASA Satellite Data Contradicts Global Warming Predictions | TheBlaze.com

But, as it turns out, Roy Spencer, the author of this work, is a well-known denialist who repeatedly lies about the science. Except he does it with graphs, so that he may seem credible if you aren't paying attention. For example:
RealClimate: How to cook a graph in three easy lessons

Anyway, this just came out, so I'll give it a few days and see if there is a rebuttal available.

 

[SharonL]

You know I am not saying this to be smart or insulting - but for the life of me I cannot see how some people can believe some of the lies that are put out there. All the lies that are presented to suck money out of our economy is beyond belief. I have lived 76 years and the weather has been the same. Look at what all the lies have created in our country - I am sitting here looking at brown grass and 31 days over 100 degrees - but that is the same weather in Texas that has been for hundreds of years. Our country is going down the tubes because we cannot drill for oil and gas because they say it is ruining our enviornment. If only we had leaders that we could believe we would all get behind whatever movement we needed to help.