What Do We Think About Climate Change

Troy, I suppose this is probably not the forum to debate Christianity and bible inerrance but let's give it a go for argument sake and no, I have it very clear what flat earth and geocentrism are.

Bible inerrance is fundamental to the Christian faith of all times. The ONLY document used to support the Christian account is the Bible, and the ONLY foundation to the new testament is the old testament.

What happens if new discoveries show that there are errors in the bible? Will this revoke the authority of the rest of the scriptures? Some will see it that way and so resist any new discovery as long as possible. The fact that some Greek philosophers or romans had a concept of round earth is not in dispute. They also had dozen of different gods living on Olympus yet Christians did not believe that to be true. The discourse of Paul to the Greeks in the Aerophagus is a fascinating inside of the struggle of the early preachers to convince the rest of the world. " TO GOD THE UNKNOWN. It is this God whom you are worshipping in ignorance that I am here to proclaim to you!

Your quote of late Catholic Church philosophers, is equally irrelevant. The Catholic church has diluted, changed, corrupted and falsified the original Christian faith to a point that it is unrecognisable and a lot of imagination is necessary to even consider Catholic doctrine as Christian.

What is clear and irrefutable from the scriptures alone is that the bible is a flat earth bible. For centuries to say that is not true equated to say that God was wrong. If you ever debate with a young earth supporter, he will put up a similar argument today, based on the same principle. God can not be wrong, so the earth is 6000 years old.


Lets see what another author says about flat earth bible.

 

you might try "the Bible Unerthed"
its a great book on the latest archiological evidence and what is says about the early Hycsos (Jews) and other people mentioned in the Bible

also "Paul the myth maker" although it's pretty old and some of the stuff has been eclipsed by newer information

anyway

climate change kids
climate change

its the topic at hand

 

Hang on Boston, how come you have re re-batised your hypotesis once more? Global warming
Climate change
Rapid Climate change
Rapid Global Climate Shift.

I can't keep up !!
PS

How about Speedy hypothetical intrathermal transition? **** for short

 

1. The Bible makes references to a flat, fixed Earth.

2. The Bible is either speaking poetically or figuratively, or it is wrong.

3. Only a minuscule number of nuts today believe the Earth is flat and fixed; the rest know better.

4. In spite of that, there are millions of faithful, practicing Christians in the world who believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and our Savior.

5. Therefore, your claim that "Bible inerrance is fundamental to the Christian faith of all times" is completely wrong. QED.

If you want to believe that Biblical inerrancy is fundamental to your belief (or lack thereof) in Christianity, that's one thing. Please do not try to tell one third of the world's population that they aren't allowed to call themselves Christians, simply because they don't meet your requirements for being one.

What are you going to do for an encore? Claim the Koran requires Muslims to kill infidels?

 

Well...you should have told me you are Catholic. However and this will be my last post on the matter, let me remind you that the biblical account states in no uncertain terms that salvation is only through Christ. Yet Catholic doctrine allows for a series of subterfuges. Purgatory, intercession by Mary praying to saints, and offers to images, all condemned by the bible. Oh, sorry I forgot buying indulgence and forgiving of sin by comon man. Did I mention the deletion of the second comandment and the splitting in two of the tenth?

 

Actually I'm not Catholic; that's just one more in a long list of idiotic, unwarranted assumptions you've made. I was raised in the Protestant tradition. I could probably be considered an agnostic today, because I don't practice any organized religion and I'm not worried about the existence or non-existence of God. I'll find out when I die, and meanwhile I think it would be hypocritical of me to talk myself into believing just to cover my butt.

If there is no God, end of problem. If there is one, I imagine he and I will get along fine. No omnipotent, omnipresent being is going to be as narrow-minded, petty and spiteful as some of the people who throw His name around.

But that doesn't mean I have to stand by and let you rewrite history and theology, insult my intelligence, and belittle the faith of millions of people who earnestly try to live by what they believe in.

 

Yes, to talk doctrine becomes always personal. You however are acting in some sort of believer's social worker by proxy. That's OK with me...on this one you don't know how much alike we actually think.

 

Unbelievable! That's all you have to say to my post? I refuse to think you can be that idiot!

 

Yes, you can....

 

More on the 60 years cycle

Alan et al:

Anthropogenic GHG emissions have increased monotonically since 1850 while the global temperature record did not. Several oscillations are seen in the data since 1850, including a global cooling since 2002: see Figure 1. If these climate oscillations are natural, for example induced by astronomical oscillations, they would determine how climate change should be interpreted [Keenlyside et al., 2008]. In fact, during its cooling phase a natural multi-decadal oscillation can hide a global warming caused by human GHG emissions or, alternatively, during its warming phase a natural oscillation can accentuate the warming. If the natural oscillations of the climate are not properly recognized and taken into account, important climate patterns, for example the global warming observed from 1970 to 2000, can be erroneously interpreted. Indeed, part of the 1970-2000 warming could have been induced by a multidecadal natural cycle during its warming phase that the climate models used by the IPCC have not reproduced.

Klyashtorin and Lyubushin [2007] and Klyashtorin et al. [2009] observed that several centuries of climate records (ice core sample, pine tree samples, sardine and anchovy sediment core samples, global surface temperature records, atmospheric circulation index, length of the day index, fish catching productivity records, etc.) are characterized by large 50-70 year and 30-year periodic cycles. The quasi-60 year periodicity has been also found in secular monsoon rainfall records from India, in proxies of monsoon rainfall from Arabian Sea sediments and in rainfall over east China [for example see the following works and their references: Agnihotri et al., 2002; Sinha A. et al. (2005); Goswami et al., 2006; Yadava and Ramesh 2007].

Thus, several records indicate that the climate is characterized by a large quasi-60 year periodicity, plus larger secular climatic cycles and smaller decadal cycles. All these cycles cannot be explained with anthropogenic emissions. Errors in the data, other superimposed patterns (for example, volcano effects and longer and shorter cycles) and some chaotic pattern in the dynamics of these signals may sometimes mask the 60-year cycle.

A multi-secular climatic record that shows a clear quasi-60 year oscillation is depicted in Figure 2: the G. Bulloides abundance variation record found in the Cariaco Basis sediments in the Caribbean sea since 1650 [Black et al., 1999]. This record is an indicator of the trade wind strength in the tropical Atlantic ocean and of the north Atlantic ocean atmosphere variability. This record shows five 60-year large cycles. These cycles correlate well with the 60-year modulation of the global temperature observed since 1850 (the correlation is negative). On longer time scales, periods of high G. Bulloides abundance correlate well with periods of reduced solar output (the wellknown Maunder, Spörer, and Wolf minima), suggesting a solar forcing origin of these cycles [Black et al., 1999]. Patterson et al. (2004) found 60-62 year cycles in sediments and cosmogenic nuclide records in the NE Pacific. Komitov (2009) found similar cycles in the number of the middle latitude auroras from 1700 to 1900. A cycle of about 60 years has been detected in the number of historically recorded meteorite falls in China from AD 619 to 1943 and in the number of witnessed falls in the world from 1800 to 1974 [Yu et al., 1983]. Ogurtsov et al. [2002] found a 60-64 year cycle in 10Be, 14C and Wolf number over the past 1000 years. The existence of a 60-year signal has been found in the Earth’s angular velocity and in the geomagnetic field [Roberts et al., 2007]. These results clearly suggest an astronomical origin of the 60-year variability found in several climatic records.


Taken from:
Scafetta, N., Empirical evidence for a celestial origin of the climate oscillations and its implications. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2010), doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2010.04.015
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1005/1005.4639v1.pdf

 

You do not understand the nature of fluctuations superimposed over a larger trend.

No one in the climate science community is claiming that the forcing factors allegedly responsible for global warming will eliminate or suppress or dampen short term fluctuations. In fact, they are expected to be present on top of longer term trends.

 

Regarding a possible 60 year cycle in the temperature data, I just performed a Fourier analysis on the global mean temperature data from 1880 to 2009. There was no peak in the frequency spectrum that would correspond to a 60 year cycle in the data.

 

Perhaps I do not understand , but you do not understand what you read. It would be wise to think a little bit before posting idiotic asumptions.

Cheers.

 

Scafetta claims that at least 60% of global warming trends observed since 1970 is explainable by natural climate oscillations. His paper was published in 2010. It's unclear what the end point was for his analysis, though he frequently refers to the year 2000. Thus, it appears that his analysis (specifically, that part of the analysis in which he supplies his 60% prediction) covers 30 years, but certainly no more than 40 years. However, this range of dates spans less than half of the time span over which mean global temperatures have been rising, which is more than a century.

To put it another way, he claims to be able to explain a bit more than 60% of the temperature rise that has occurred during less than 40% of the relevant time period, or roughly speaking he can explain about one half of one half of the overall trend.

To put it simply, he does not claim to explain the majority of the temperature rise that has occurred over the last century or century and a half.

 

Once again Boston the Weasel tries to reframe the debate by assuming that the weak hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming(which he has seen fit to rename once again)is a scientific fact when even such a high priest of the AGW dogma as Phil Jones admits that the debate is not over. Boston figures that if he makes a pronouncement,(which always seem so imperious in style) that it becomes fact. We have no need to post a competing theory to an event that is not happening. Without all the doctoring of data, the smoothing, the adjustments, and the unproven assumptions that are the 3 legged foundation of AGW, there is no crisis to remediate or worry about. All we are left with is a social agenda that the political hacks on the left are trying to impose in the name of saving the planet from ourselves.

If it were indeed about the science, as Troy claims, then the movers and shakers in the AGW bureaucracies of the left leaning governments would not be so keen on attempting to smear and silence any dissenters. Never in history has politics taken such a key role in scientific debate. If it were about the science, then the AGW proponents should be more than happy to debate their colleagues that disagree with them. Something as certain as they maintain should be easy to defend. Instead almost without exception, the lead scientists that make up the core group of AGW authors refuse to debate or discuss their theory in a public forum with media present.

The ad hominem attack tactic is used quite often in this thread in almost exactly the manner as suggested in RealClimate and DeSmogblog, hmmmph, go figure.