Extreme Cold

[ayin jade]

And you have provided any data at all? I have seen nothing but partisan political emotion from the deniers

The data shows the earth has warned and the CO2 has increased out of a normal climate cycle. If you can provide data that points to something other than mankind, feel free to do so

 

I mentioned quite a bit, but you do not accept it. I dont think anything I provided would satisfy you. Since I am not a republican, it is not partisan political emotion on my part lol.

[ayin jade]

Here is one that shows it was much greener long ago. Im sure there are other articles out there. I have read many in the past years that show more recent warmings.

 

http://www.livescience.com/7331-ancient-greenland-green.html

[Alex Summers]

Nobody is disputing that it was warmer in the past, most of all the scientist who study this stuff. But it is a non sequitur to go from there to the conclusion humans are not part of the cause this time .

And your link states that when Greenland was that green sea levels were 3 to 6 feet higher. What do you suppose 6 feet higher seas would do to the 40% of the world that lives close to a coast line?

And if Greenland is that warm, what do you think the temps in the plains where the vast majority of our food is grown going to be?

About natural cycles:

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle

[ayin jade]

Climate changes all the time. But no one has proven that the current change is anything more than coming out of the mini ice age that happened around 1900. No one has shown that it is human caused since all the models fail to prove it. The models have failed predictions. Not a single one has "guessed" correct climate changes. The earth was warmer in the past. It was not caused by man. You have not demonstrated that it is caused by man now. Just because co2 might be higher now does not mean it is man caused. It was higher in the past too when it could not be man caused. I showed a couple of months ago in another thread that pollution in europe was mostly caused by one volcano in iceland. To date, no one, you included, has shown me what earth climate is supposed to be and why we are deviating from it. I do not accept that hyped claim that the earth is headed to abnormal temperatures or that it is man caused. Nothing has proven that. It is all conjecture that is supposedly supported by models that have failed predictions and data that has been altered. That is not good science.

[Steve_S]

I apologize, it seems I have not been clear enough when I was speaking about weather and when I was speaking of the climate, as they are not one in the same.

The climate goes through cycles, ice ages and such. These cycles are fairly easy to determine based upon the evidences left behind. Based upon that history we should not be in the warming cycle we are in. Also, the speed with which the temps have increased is abnormal.

The extreme weather that was spoke of in this thread is a predicted outcome of the climate changing.

Two things we know for certain, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up exponentially since the industrial revolution and temps have increased in the last century outside of the normal climate cycle.

We know man can affect the weather, just read about the dust bowl of the 20's. There is nothing in the bible that would preclude mankind from messing up the climate cycle as well.

 

Well, I'm not sure if the term "exponentially" should be thrown around here, We're talking about 400 ppm versus as high as 250 ppm being recognized as having been present at times pre-industrial revolution. In fact, from what I can glean right now 200-250 ppm seems to be the historical norm. I would hardly call not even doubling recorded norms an exponential increase. If I have an ice cream cone with two scoops of ice cream on it (I enjoy ice cream) and you add another 1-1/2 to 2 scoops to it, I would not refer to that as an exponential increase. Perhaps if you threw 50 or 100 more scoops on it, sure, not less than doubling it though, no. However, since we are talking about something that has historically, as far as anyone can tell, has made up 0.02 to 0.025 percent of the atmosphere increasing to 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, perhaps a more reasonable example would be taking an entire ribeye steak (I also enjoy ribeye steak) and placing two grains of coarsely ground sea salt on it, and then, shortly thereafter, deciding that perhaps you did not have enough coarsely ground sea salt on your tasty ribeye steak, so adding another grain and a half to two grains (depending upon the mood you may be in, perhaps you are feeling extra adventurous?). Again, I would not go about dancing through the kitchen celebrating the exponential increase of coarsely ground sea salt on my woefully underseasoned, but perfectly marbled, slice of bovine excellence.

 

Generally, if we are talking about an element that is present in the atmosphere at a rate that is measured in hundredths of a percent and that increases a bit, but still must be quantified in hundredths of a percent, there is going to have to be concrete proof of any contention that it increasing is going to have any meaningful effect for me to believe it. At this point, I am largely unconvinced. Climatological models have, in the past, been an outright abject failure as predictors of the continued effects increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, and the new ones continue to be so as well. The main problem here, for me, is that the predictive power of climatological modeling has been laughably flawed as a meaningful tool in determining associated outcomes. For basically the past 25 years, but especially the past 15, global temperature changes have time and time again failed to get anywhere near where the models predict (and that was mainly because the modeling in the 90s pretty much predicted these even more absurd, calamitous sort of scenarios). Since 2000 or so the land-temperature index has remained virtually static (yes, almost unchanged, perhaps slightly warmer, but certainly within any reasonable margin of error) despite the Keeling curve having continued on virtually the same trajectory from 1965 to 2015. In other words - carbon dioxide has increased at the same rate for the past 15 years as it did in the previous 35, but the temperature index that has been used to perpetuate the contention of man-made global warming has gone virtually unchanged in the past 15 years, where as in the previous 35 there was a marked increase in global mean temperature (maybe 0.5 - 0.7 degrees, in that vicinity?).

 

All arguments about faked data and conspiracy aside, global warming advocates have two very major problems on their hands. Firstly - their models are virtually never accurate to any reasonable degree and are *almost always* inaccurate in such a way as that they fall on the side of over-predicting both temperatures and effects, not under-predicting (which, for anyone in a purely scientific setting, should be a huge red flag of ideology creeping into what is supposed to be balanced and dispassionate observation). Secondly (far more importantly) - in the past 15 years it has not gotten warmer. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to increase, but the effect of continued warming is simply not being observed in any meaningful way, certainly not to a degree that can be congruently associated with the continued increase in carbon dioxide, which is what the crux of this entire man-made global arming argument hinges on in the first place.

[ncn]

Locked

 

This thread has run its course.

 

Pro 19:21  Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the LORD that will stand.