Ice Age is coming back. - Page 7 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > The Pub
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

The Pub A friendly forum where everybody is nice, and will answer any questions you have about life.

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 4th, 2019, 06:44 PM   #121
booblinker
Sore and Tired 24/7
 
booblinker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-29-06
Location: Richmond Twp, mi
Posts: 12,995
iTrader: (6)
Mentioned: 23 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to booblinker
Default

I didnt read through all the replies, but all I have to say is fukc this bullshit cold weather.
booblinker is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old March 5th, 2019, 05:42 AM   #122
greygoose
Gustafson
 
greygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-18-08
Location: New Baltimore / Presque Isle
Posts: 8,293
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by booblinker View Post
I didnt read through all the replies, but all I have to say is fuck this bullshit cold weather.
Yeah, I'm ready for a thaw as well.
greygoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2019, 06:28 AM   #123
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 8,202
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlooMule View Post
Here's what I got from this thread. By BlooMule:

People disagree and get defensive when their view is challenged.

That, and we are all gonna die.


Someday.
Yup, this is true.
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2019, 07:52 AM   #124
wave_crusher
I'll Direc your TV
 
wave_crusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-20-09
Location: Alpena, MI
Posts: 8,152
iTrader: (23)
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
You do seem to read up on and research global warming/climate change. I have opposing views and research from a pretty smart guy. He used to be an evolutionist scientist. He has come around 180 degrees. He is still a scientist but looks at it from a creationists point of view.
Check out his article on global warming.
It is a rather long read but it might give you some insight to what others think about the climate and the earth.

https://www.creationworldview.org/ar...view.asp?id=67
I got about 1/4 of the way in. One of the first paragraphs already nearly had me quitting. "God promises that the earth cannot and will not be destroyed by Man: Genesis 8:22 (NAS)". Cause that's a good way to start a "scientific" article.

Which isn't actually in the NAS or the NIV or the KJV, or any version. So I don't know why it's quoted as a direct quote from the bible.

Then there was the claim about the medievil warm period; which was a time when warming caused global temperatures to be about the same as they are now (which the article claims was warmer). Those temperatures were found to be due to an increase in solar radiation and volcanic activity. Again, now we do not have the increase in solar radiation and volcanic activity; yet the earth is still warming. Hmmm...that's a mystery.

So, I stopped about 1/4 of the way of full reading. Skimmed the rest and had the same thoughts. I don't get how that article was supposed to be enlightening. It's the exact same thing you are saying, almost as if you are reading the article and regurgitating it on here.half of it doesn't make sense, 1/4 of it is God said this, so it's right, 1/8 of it is making fun of /the left 1/16 of it is using dr. names and saying this article without actually giving where the article(s) is, then another 1/4 is personal opinon BS and maybe about 1/32 is something that is a decent read. Then the remaining (what are we at now 5/16?) is nonsense.
__________________
-2011 Ford Fusion SEL 3.0L
-2006 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo 4.7L 65th Annv.
-1996 Chevrolet K1500 5.7L Vortec- Dirty mall queen
wave_crusher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2019, 07:54 AM   #125
wave_crusher
I'll Direc your TV
 
wave_crusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-20-09
Location: Alpena, MI
Posts: 8,152
iTrader: (23)
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlooMule View Post
Here's what I got from this thread. By BlooMule:

People disagree and get defensive when their view is challenged.

That, and we are all gonna die.


Someday.
Well. I think everyone can agree on that
__________________
-2011 Ford Fusion SEL 3.0L
-2006 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo 4.7L 65th Annv.
-1996 Chevrolet K1500 5.7L Vortec- Dirty mall queen
wave_crusher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2019, 08:09 AM   #126
greygoose
Gustafson
 
greygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-18-08
Location: New Baltimore / Presque Isle
Posts: 8,293
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wave_crusher View Post
Well. I think everyone can agree on that
x2
greygoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2019, 08:58 AM   #127
jeepfreak81
81 inches of fun
 
jeepfreak81's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-10-05
Location: Lennon, Mi
Posts: 14,063
iTrader: (25)
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to jeepfreak81 Send a message via MSN to jeepfreak81 Send a message via Yahoo to jeepfreak81
Default

I have learned there is still enough traffic here to send a thread to 7 pages in just over a week
jeepfreak81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2019, 09:09 AM   #128
greygoose
Gustafson
 
greygoose's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-18-08
Location: New Baltimore / Presque Isle
Posts: 8,293
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepfreak81 View Post
I have learned there is still enough traffic here to send a thread to 7 pages in just over a week
We are all learning something!
greygoose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2019, 09:13 AM   #129
roll-bar Bob
Senior Member
 
roll-bar Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-20-06
Location: M CITY
Posts: 3,388
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepfreak81 View Post
I have learned there is still enough traffic here to send a thread to 7 pages in just over a week
roll-bar Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2019, 09:22 AM   #130
Jrgunn5150
Senior Member
 
Jrgunn5150's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-13-10
Location: Ionia Michigan
Posts: 2,082
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepfreak81 View Post
I have learned there is still enough traffic here to send a thread to 7 pages in just over a week
As long as it's not about 4x4's
Jrgunn5150 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2019, 01:04 PM   #131
brewmenn
Mr. Special Snowflake.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 12,531
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Default

As usual in these discussions I don’t think anyone is completely right (not even me) and no one is completely wrong (not even Aber).

(Aber and other “youngearthers” can ignore this since you wouldn’t believe it anyways)
First, to scientists the term “ice age” does not mean what you think it means. An ice age is defined as a period where large continental ice sheets and glaciers exits. As that describes the current situation, we are in an ice age, and have been for about 2.6 million years. During an ice age, there are glacier periods, where much of the planet is covered in ice, and interglacial periods, where only the high latitudes and altitudes are ice covered. We are currently in an interglacial period that started about 12,000 years ago. The entirety of known human civilization has been this period. It’s also interesting to note that the glacial periods are much longer, as much as 100,000 years, while the interglacial periods might be as short as 20,000 years. This means that it is entirely possible that we are due to start heading into a glacial period. And yes, there are some studies that suggest that our man made global warming might be holding that off.

From the “millions of years” perspective that Whiterhino refers to, he is correct. Short of possible a global nuclear war, there’s probably nothing that we can do to significantly alter the progression of ice ages. These changes are probably more likely to be brought on by things like supervolcano eruptions or comet strikes. Whatever effect we have is insignificant in the millions of years perspective.

But the biggest concern is not in that million year view, nor in the 10,000 view. It’s in the 100-1000 year view. We know that we are releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere that what would be naturally be released. CO2 levels are measurably higher than possible any time previously for possible millions of years. Global temperatures are higher now that have been previously recorded. We do have studies that link the higher co2 levels with higher global temperatures. We have seen more melting of glaciers as a result of those higher temperatures. And it doesn’t take a scientific study to see that as more ice melts and flows into the oceans that ocean levels will rise. This is what we hope to avoid by reducing current co2 emissions.

(Aber start reading here)
Something else I notice while searching around for facts and figures is that there does seem like every article I found was written to prove a preconceived conclusion and not to present facts. Take this one for example:
https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhou...teref4_mge5t7a
Notice the pretty pie charts breaking down co2 emissions by source. Notice that they are labeled with percentages and not raw numbers. Notice that they do not have a pie chart showing co2 emissions from both human and natural sources. I notice and wondered why, so I started looking for the actual numbers. It turns out that the total natural emissions are around 770 billion tonnes a year, while emissions from human sources is only about 40 billion tonnes a year. It’s also rare to see any article stating what Whiterhino said about the fact that the actual co2 concentration is very small. I woun't go as far as to call it a hoax or a conspiracy, but it is disturbing to me that they seem to be trying to deceive people.

Conclusion: I’m all for clean and renewable energy and would like to see a push in that direction, but we can’t ruin our economy and society to do it. It’s only our affluence as a nation that affords us the ability to care about such things.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2019, 02:02 PM   #132
wave_crusher
I'll Direc your TV
 
wave_crusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-20-09
Location: Alpena, MI
Posts: 8,152
iTrader: (23)
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
As usual in these discussions I don’t think anyone is completely right (not even me) and no one is completely wrong (not even Aber).

(Aber and other “youngearthers” can ignore this since you wouldn’t believe it anyways)
First, to scientists the term “ice age” does not mean what you think it means. An ice age is defined as a period where large continental ice sheets and glaciers exits. As that describes the current situation, we are in an ice age, and have been for about 2.6 million years. During an ice age, there are glacier periods, where much of the planet is covered in ice, and interglacial periods, where only the high latitudes and altitudes are ice covered. We are currently in an interglacial period that started about 12,000 years ago. The entirety of known human civilization has been this period. It’s also interesting to note that the glacial periods are much longer, as much as 100,000 years, while the interglacial periods might be as short as 20,000 years. This means that it is entirely possible that we are due to start heading into a glacial period. And yes, there are some studies that suggest that our man made global warming might be holding that off.

From the “millions of years” perspective that Whiterhino refers to, he is correct. Short of possible a global nuclear war, there’s probably nothing that we can do to significantly alter the progression of ice ages. These changes are probably more likely to be brought on by things like supervolcano eruptions or comet strikes. Whatever effect we have is insignificant in the millions of years perspective.

But the biggest concern is not in that million year view, nor in the 10,000 view. It’s in the 100-1000 year view. We know that we are releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere that what would be naturally be released. CO2 levels are measurably higher than possible any time previously for possible millions of years. Global temperatures are higher now that have been previously recorded. We do have studies that link the higher co2 levels with higher global temperatures. We have seen more melting of glaciers as a result of those higher temperatures. And it doesn’t take a scientific study to see that as more ice melts and flows into the oceans that ocean levels will rise. This is what we hope to avoid by reducing current co2 emissions.

(Aber start reading here)
Something else I notice while searching around for facts and figures is that there does seem like every article I found was written to prove a preconceived conclusion and not to present facts. Take this one for example:
https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhou...teref4_mge5t7a
Notice the pretty pie charts breaking down co2 emissions by source. Notice that they are labeled with percentages and not raw numbers. Notice that they do not have a pie chart showing co2 emissions from both human and natural sources. I notice and wondered why, so I started looking for the actual numbers. It turns out that the total natural emissions are around 770 billion tonnes a year, while emissions from human sources is only about 40 billion tonnes a year. It’s also rare to see any article stating what Whiterhino said about the fact that the actual co2 concentration is very small. I woun't go as far as to call it a hoax or a conspiracy, but it is disturbing to me that they seem to be trying to deceive people.

Conclusion: I’m all for clean and renewable energy and would like to see a push in that direction, but we can’t ruin our economy and society to do it. It’s only our affluence as a nation that affords us the ability to care about such things.
^ this
__________________
-2011 Ford Fusion SEL 3.0L
-2006 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo 4.7L 65th Annv.
-1996 Chevrolet K1500 5.7L Vortec- Dirty mall queen
wave_crusher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2019, 03:20 PM   #133
whiterhino
I'm not old, honest...
 
whiterhino's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-07-06
Location: Davisburg MI
Posts: 29,348
iTrader: (25)
Mentioned: 168 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
As usual in these discussions I don’t think anyone is completely right (not even me) and no one is completely wrong (not even Aber).

(Aber and other “youngearthers” can ignore this since you wouldn’t believe it anyways)
First, to scientists the term “ice age” does not mean what you think it means. An ice age is defined as a period where large continental ice sheets and glaciers exits. As that describes the current situation, we are in an ice age, and have been for about 2.6 million years. During an ice age, there are glacier periods, where much of the planet is covered in ice, and interglacial periods, where only the high latitudes and altitudes are ice covered. We are currently in an interglacial period that started about 12,000 years ago. The entirety of known human civilization has been this period. It’s also interesting to note that the glacial periods are much longer, as much as 100,000 years, while the interglacial periods might be as short as 20,000 years. This means that it is entirely possible that we are due to start heading into a glacial period. And yes, there are some studies that suggest that our man made global warming might be holding that off.

From the “millions of years” perspective that Whiterhino refers to, he is correct. Short of possible a global nuclear war, there’s probably nothing that we can do to significantly alter the progression of ice ages. These changes are probably more likely to be brought on by things like supervolcano eruptions or comet strikes. Whatever effect we have is insignificant in the millions of years perspective.

But the biggest concern is not in that million year view, nor in the 10,000 view. It’s in the 100-1000 year view. We know that we are releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere that what would be naturally be released. CO2 levels are measurably higher than possible any time previously for possible millions of years. Global temperatures are higher now that have been previously recorded. We do have studies that link the higher co2 levels with higher global temperatures. We have seen more melting of glaciers as a result of those higher temperatures. And it doesn’t take a scientific study to see that as more ice melts and flows into the oceans that ocean levels will rise. This is what we hope to avoid by reducing current co2 emissions.

(Aber start reading here)
Something else I notice while searching around for facts and figures is that there does seem like every article I found was written to prove a preconceived conclusion and not to present facts. Take this one for example:
https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhou...teref4_mge5t7a
Notice the pretty pie charts breaking down co2 emissions by source. Notice that they are labeled with percentages and not raw numbers. Notice that they do not have a pie chart showing co2 emissions from both human and natural sources. I notice and wondered why, so I started looking for the actual numbers. It turns out that the total natural emissions are around 770 billion tonnes a year, while emissions from human sources is only about 40 billion tonnes a year. It’s also rare to see any article stating what Whiterhino said about the fact that the actual co2 concentration is very small. I woun't go as far as to call it a hoax or a conspiracy, but it is disturbing to me that they seem to be trying to deceive people.

Conclusion: I’m all for clean and renewable energy and would like to see a push in that direction, but we can’t ruin our economy and society to do it. It’s only our affluence as a nation that affords us the ability to care about such things.
Pretty well written and I pretty much agree. RE the highlighted area, I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying it's hard to find data supporting where I say CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere or am I misinterpreting your comments? If you simply google "percentage of co2 in atmosphere" you will find plenty of links with the basic number around .04% or 400 parts per million. I don't think any of this is disputable. What "IS" disputable is what it means.

In that same page of links, I see a comment that " Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in at least the past 800,000 years". Yes, I trust science, but I also wonder how any scientist has ACCURATE numbers of what a trace element's actual level was 800,000 years ago, and how much has it actually changed. I'm not saying they are wrong, but I am questioning the logic of its accuracy.......... and impact.

You will also find an link to an article talking about how if it's such a small number, why is it so important. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...oxide-makes-u/

The article makes sense......... again, until you question the accuracy of the measurement of the atmosphere thousands of years ago, when you are trying to decipher a VERY SMALL number in something that no longer exists. When I watch a weather forecaster miss tomorrow's forecast by a mile (all the while using the most sophisticated gadgets available) I wonder how accurate they can read a remnant of the atmosphere that is buried in some bone, or dirt or other item that has captured that moment in time and not question how much it may have changed over the last several thousand years.

As a side note, we have a spectrometer here at work for analyzing metals. When we spark a part, the trace elements will vary from spark to spark on the same part. Now, I admit we are using a $50,000 piece of test equipment vs a $1m piece of test equipment, but I simply struggle understanding our accuracy behind our statements.
whiterhino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2019, 04:05 PM   #134
brewmenn
Mr. Special Snowflake.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 12,531
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
Pretty well written and I pretty much agree. RE the highlighted area, I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying it's hard to find data supporting where I say CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere or am I misinterpreting your comments? If you simply google "percentage of co2 in atmosphere" you will find plenty of links with the basic number around .04% or 400 parts per million. I don't think any of this is disputable. What "IS" disputable is what it means.

In that same page of links, I see a comment that " Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in at least the past 800,000 years". Yes, I trust science, but I also wonder how any scientist has ACCURATE numbers of what a trace element's actual level was 800,000 years ago, and how much has it actually changed. I'm not saying they are wrong, but I am questioning the logic of its accuracy.......... and impact.

You will also find an link to an article talking about how if it's such a small number, why is it so important. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...oxide-makes-u/

The article makes sense......... again, until you question the accuracy of the measurement of the atmosphere thousands of years ago, when you are trying to decipher a VERY SMALL number in something that no longer exists. When I watch a weather forecaster miss tomorrow's forecast by a mile (all the while using the most sophisticated gadgets available) I wonder how accurate they can read a remnant of the atmosphere that is buried in some bone, or dirt or other item that has captured that moment in time and not question how much it may have changed over the last several thousand years.

As a side note, we have a spectrometer here at work for analyzing metals. When we spark a part, the trace elements will vary from spark to spark on the same part. Now, I admit we are using a $50,000 piece of test equipment vs a $1m piece of test equipment, but I simply struggle understanding our accuracy behind our statements.
I'm saying that it seems that most main stream media articles will go out of their way to avoid giving information like that that will make people question their conclusions.

And I agree that some some of those measurements they claim seem to be questionable.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2019, 07:12 PM   #135
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 8,202
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wave_crusher View Post
I got about 1/4 of the way in. One of the first paragraphs already nearly had me quitting. "God promises that the earth cannot and will not be destroyed by Man: Genesis 8:22 (NAS)". Cause that's a good way to start a "scientific" article.

Which isn't actually in the NAS or the NIV or the KJV, or any version. So I don't know why it's quoted as a direct quote from the bible.

Then there was the claim about the medievil warm period; which was a time when warming caused global temperatures to be about the same as they are now (which the article claims was warmer). Those temperatures were found to be due to an increase in solar radiation and volcanic activity. Again, now we do not have the increase in solar radiation and volcanic activity; yet the earth is still warming. Hmmm...that's a mystery.

So, I stopped about 1/4 of the way of full reading. Skimmed the rest and had the same thoughts. I don't get how that article was supposed to be enlightening. It's the exact same thing you are saying, almost as if you are reading the article and regurgitating it on here.half of it doesn't make sense, 1/4 of it is God said this, so it's right, 1/8 of it is making fun of /the left 1/16 of it is using dr. names and saying this article without actually giving where the article(s) is, then another 1/4 is personal opinon BS and maybe about 1/32 is something that is a decent read. Then the remaining (what are we at now 5/16?) is nonsense.
I do catch this guy on a radio station once and awhile so I have heard what he has to say.
He is probably smarter that most scientists that have opinions about global warming. His IQ is above average. He doesn't brag about it but he is a member of Mensa, one of those brainiacks.
He does believe that God is the creator of the universe and his articles follow that path. His studies point to a young earth.
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2019, 07:24 PM   #136
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 8,202
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
As usual in these discussions I don’t think anyone is completely right (not even me) and no one is completely wrong (not even Aber).

(Aber and other “youngearthers” can ignore this since you wouldn’t believe it anyways)
First, to scientists the term “ice age” does not mean what you think it means. An ice age is defined as a period where large continental ice sheets and glaciers exits. As that describes the current situation, we are in an ice age, and have been for about 2.6 million years. During an ice age, there are glacier periods, where much of the planet is covered in ice, and interglacial periods, where only the high latitudes and altitudes are ice covered. We are currently in an interglacial period that started about 12,000 years ago. The entirety of known human civilization has been this period. It’s also interesting to note that the glacial periods are much longer, as much as 100,000 years, while the interglacial periods might be as short as 20,000 years. This means that it is entirely possible that we are due to start heading into a glacial period. And yes, there are some studies that suggest that our man made global warming might be holding that off.

From the “millions of years” perspective that Whiterhino refers to, he is correct. Short of possible a global nuclear war, there’s probably nothing that we can do to significantly alter the progression of ice ages. These changes are probably more likely to be brought on by things like supervolcano eruptions or comet strikes. Whatever effect we have is insignificant in the millions of years perspective.

But the biggest concern is not in that million year view, nor in the 10,000 view. It’s in the 100-1000 year view. We know that we are releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere that what would be naturally be released. CO2 levels are measurably higher than possible any time previously for possible millions of years. Global temperatures are higher now that have been previously recorded. We do have studies that link the higher co2 levels with higher global temperatures. We have seen more melting of glaciers as a result of those higher temperatures. And it doesn’t take a scientific study to see that as more ice melts and flows into the oceans that ocean levels will rise. This is what we hope to avoid by reducing current co2 emissions.

(Aber start reading here)
Something else I notice while searching around for facts and figures is that there does seem like every article I found was written to prove a preconceived conclusion and not to present facts. Take this one for example:
https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhou...teref4_mge5t7a
Notice the pretty pie charts breaking down co2 emissions by source. Notice that they are labeled with percentages and not raw numbers. Notice that they do not have a pie chart showing co2 emissions from both human and natural sources. I notice and wondered why, so I started looking for the actual numbers. It turns out that the total natural emissions are around 770 billion tonnes a year, while emissions from human sources is only about 40 billion tonnes a year. It’s also rare to see any article stating what Whiterhino said about the fact that the actual co2 concentration is very small. I woun't go as far as to call it a hoax or a conspiracy, but it is disturbing to me that they seem to be trying to deceive people.

Conclusion: I’m all for clean and renewable energy and would like to see a push in that direction, but we can’t ruin our economy and society to do it. It’s only our affluence as a nation that affords us the ability to care about such things.
I do believe in a young earth not the old earth model that you described. Your last paragraph is spot on.

[QUOTE=whiterhino;6395750]Pretty well written and I pretty much agree. RE the highlighted area, I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying it's hard to find data supporting where I say CO2 is a small percentage of the atmosphere or am I misinterpreting your comments? If you simply google "percentage of co2 in atmosphere" you will find plenty of links with the basic number around .04% or 400 parts per million. I don't think any of this is disputable. What "IS" disputable is what it means.

In that same page of links, I see a comment that " Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in at least the past 800,000 years". Yes, I trust science, but I also wonder how any scientist has ACCURATE numbers of what a trace element's actual level was 800,000 years ago, and how much has it actually changed. I'm not saying they are wrong, but I am questioning the logic of its accuracy.......... and impact.

You will also find an link to an article talking about how if it's such a small number, why is it so important. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...oxide-makes-u/

The article makes sense......... again, until you question the accuracy of the measurement of the atmosphere thousands of years ago, when you are trying to decipher a VERY SMALL number in something that no longer exists. When I watch a weather forecaster miss tomorrow's forecast by a mile (all the while using the most sophisticated gadgets available) I wonder how accurate they can read a remnant of the atmosphere that is buried in some bone, or dirt or other item that has captured that moment in time and not question how much it may have changed over the last several thousand years.

As a side note, we have a spectrometer here at work for analyzing metals. When we spark a part, the trace elements will vary from spark to spark on the same part. Now, I admit we are using a $50,000 piece of test equipment vs a $1m piece of test equipment, but I simply struggle understanding our accuracy behind our statements.[/QUOTE]

I have a difficult time with this also.
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2019, 10:26 AM   #137
wave_crusher
I'll Direc your TV
 
wave_crusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-20-09
Location: Alpena, MI
Posts: 8,152
iTrader: (23)
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post
I do catch this guy on a radio station once and awhile so I have heard what he has to say.
He is probably smarter that most scientists that have opinions about global warming. His IQ is above average. He doesn't brag about it but he is a member of Mensa, one of those brainiacks.
He does believe that God is the creator of the universe and his articles follow that path. His studies point to a young earth.
You, literally, cannot be a scientist, and believe in the YEC. Young earth believes that the earth was created like 10,000 years ago. Science literally disproves that with the thousands of different things that have been found that are far older than 10,000 years.

My issue with that article, is there was nothing different about it than any other religious article trying to disprove anything. There is no citations, or proof of facts, or examples with verifiable data. Not one time did he cite where he got his information from. So why should I believe what he is saying; for all I know he made it all up.
__________________
-2011 Ford Fusion SEL 3.0L
-2006 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo 4.7L 65th Annv.
-1996 Chevrolet K1500 5.7L Vortec- Dirty mall queen
wave_crusher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2019, 10:30 AM   #138
wave_crusher
I'll Direc your TV
 
wave_crusher's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-20-09
Location: Alpena, MI
Posts: 8,152
iTrader: (23)
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aber61 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by whiterhino View Post
but I simply struggle understanding our accuracy behind our statements.
I have a difficult time with this also.
Again. This is hilarious. You of all people, agreeing that it is hard to understand the accuracy of statements based upon an inability to verify the information.

Pot. Meet Kettle.
__________________
-2011 Ford Fusion SEL 3.0L
-2006 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo 4.7L 65th Annv.
-1996 Chevrolet K1500 5.7L Vortec- Dirty mall queen
wave_crusher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2019, 06:08 PM   #139
aber61
Senior Member
 
aber61's Avatar
 
Join Date: 09-22-08
Location: Commerce Twp. Michigan
Posts: 8,202
iTrader: (3)
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wave_crusher View Post
You, literally, cannot be a scientist, and believe in the YEC. Young earth believes that the earth was created like 10,000 years ago. Science literally disproves that with the thousands of different things that have been found that are far older than 10,000 years.

My issue with that article, is there was nothing different about it than any other religious article trying to disprove anything. There is no citations, or proof of facts, or examples with verifiable data. Not one time did he cite where he got his information from. So why should I believe what he is saying; for all I know he made it all up.
Young earth believers figure the earth to be more around 6000 yrs. Where is your proof that science disproves a young earth?
You do realize that the guy who wrote the article and the website is his is almost an Einstien.
I would think that you would need to find evidence to disprove his findings.
You might want to think about looking over the rest of his site to see where he is coming from or just stick to the sites you visit to gather your information.
aber61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2019, 06:36 PM   #140
Zjman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 03-28-14
Location: Corning, ohio
Posts: 241
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

So your gonna believe one person over countless scientific data and scientists that proves the earth is older than 6,000 years old. Ya ever hear of carbon dating? You said before ya believed dinosaurs existed, guess what they lived 65 million years ago. And you do realize some of the smartest people in the world are Also some of the craziest right? Let me guess the earth is flat right? We never landed on the moon either and 911 was a hoax. I hope one day that ring gets ripped out your nose you’re being led by. Have your own thoughts not what ur told to believe by a minuscule amount of the people who you believe are right versus the proven masses with facts and scientific data, but I do realize I’m wasting my energy typing this because you can’t have a open mind


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Zjman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > The Pub

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
moving battery to the back ...what size cable? laxman1306 General Tech 17 April 29th, 2018 08:56 AM
Look out halfgassed is back! halfgassed The Pub 26 April 8th, 2017 06:06 AM
Misc Jeep Part(s) SOLD 17x9, 5 on 4.5, 5.6" back space, american outlaw buckshots joe_jeep Parts for sale 5 June 30th, 2015 02:31 PM
K5 Blazer/Jimmy high back seats wrath Wanted 2 June 4th, 2015 07:45 AM
Northern Michigan to Nashville Ten. and back leaving friday compauto Parts Transfer and Delivery 0 May 3rd, 2015 07:12 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:38 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
 
Page generated in 2.51753 seconds with 85 queries