Any doubts about Climate Change?

**bsnub** · 22-11-2015, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I know exactly who John Daly was, and he was no kook he study climatology for years and debunked much of what the IPCC presented as fact, upon his death the head of the IPPC declared it a great day for there organization.

Total nonsense and so predictable you would buy that crap. Daly was a clown and far from a scientist as they come. You once again prove how ignorant and blinkered you are.

Well once again the loudmouth speaks, but no back up.

Why would I need backup? You have not presented one scientific fact not one. Do you think that because you post up some tin foil nonsense from a source that has been completely discredited that anyone should even address that garbage?

When you post up one credible scientific source I will be the first to acknowledge that. The simple fact is you have never done so sir.

**FlyFree** · 22-11-2015, 07:05 PM

Anyone who believes in a scientific conspiracy/agenda is a flatout nutcase and not worthy of any respect.

Any adult knows science is practiced by thousands of scientists of all cultures/backgrounds around the world. The only common factor is the scientific method, which is designed to weed out the crap. And the fact is that they live for finding the facts/disproving theories proposed. Often in very hostile conditions.

So to go to any source outside this large, diverse but interconnected/peer reviewed network for your 'scientific facts' is just dishonest and/or dumb.

A religious/political/whatever based source is NOT where you find scientific consensus. You are an idiot if you look there, or just totally dishonest. Either way, not worth listening to. Period.

Go sell your snake oil on another thread, not this one.

**RPETER65** · 22-11-2015, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I know exactly who John Daly was, and he was no kook he study climatology for years and debunked much of what the IPCC presented as fact, upon his death the head of the IPPC declared it a great day for there organization.

Total nonsense and so predictable you would buy that crap. Daly was a clown and far from a scientist as they come. You once again prove how ignorant and blinkered you are.

Well once again the loudmouth speaks, but no back up.

Why would I need backup? You have not presented one scientific fact not one. Do you think that because you post up some tin foil nonsense from a source that has been completely discredited that anyone should even address that garbage?

When you post up one credible scientific source I will be the first to acknowledge that. The simple fact is you have never done so sir.

Because you call the article I pasted garbage but don't refute one thing, not one, you consistently do that. You don't refute the difference between ground temperature, you don't refute the facts of urban verses rural temperature, nothing you just think that because you say it it is garbage and that is not always the case.

**RPETER65** · 22-11-2015, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by FlyFree

Anyone who believes in a scientific conspiracy/agenda is a flatout nutcase and not worthy of any respect.

Any adult knows science is practiced by thousands of scientists of all cultures/backgrounds around the world. The only common factor is the scientific method, which is designed to weed out the crap. And the fact is that they live for finding the facts/disproving theories proposed. Often in very hostile conditions.

So to go to any source outside this large, diverse but interconnected/peer reviewed network for your 'scientific facts' is just dishonest and/or dumb.

A religious/political/whatever based source is NOT where you find scientific consensus. You are an idiot if you look there, or just totally dishonest. Either way, not worth listening to. Period.

Go sell your snake oil on another thread, not this one.

And your the decider of who post where. Jon Daly has more than once debunked so called scientific fact,as have others.

You sell your brand of snake oil and I'll sell mine, how about that.

**Neo** · 22-11-2015, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by Neo

It's basic science and the reason I'm asking is if you can't grasp such a simple concept, or indeed admit to the facts of the matter, then how can you expect us to consider your opinion on more complex matters such as global warming to have any integrity..?

Coal comes from compacted vegetation. The evolutionists say it would have taken as much as 350 million years to form the amount of coal beds known in the world. There is however another school of thought that this could have happened in less than 1600 years.

To which school of thought do you subscribe?

**RPETER65** · 22-11-2015, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by Neo

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by Neo

It's basic science and the reason I'm asking is if you can't grasp such a simple concept, or indeed admit to the facts of the matter, then how can you expect us to consider your opinion on more complex matters such as global warming to have any integrity..?

Coal comes from compacted vegetation. The evolutionists say it would have taken as much as 350 million years to form the amount of coal beds known in the world. There is however another school of thought that this could have happened in less than 1600 years.

To which school of thought do you subscribe?

That would be that evidence shows coal could easily have formed in less than 1600 years.

**Neo** · 22-11-2015, 08:07 PM

So for the sake of integrity do you have any data that would back that up?

**hazz** · 22-11-2015, 08:15 PM

this would be the god did it, enough said or else school of faith based truth

let me guess peters.... you believe that sinbad and his flying carpet roves that there is no such thing as gravity

**Umbuku** · 22-11-2015, 08:15 PM

That's why it's full of extinct plant fossils...

**thaimeme** · 22-11-2015, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by Neo

So for the sake of integrity do you have any data that would back that up?

The Christian Bible....

**Neo** · 22-11-2015, 08:24 PM

He's certainly taking his time, must be double checking the data before posting...

**hazz** · 22-11-2015, 08:35 PM

probably reading this

**S Landreth** · 22-11-2015, 10:58 PM

More about the last time we might see ) levels below 400 parts per million

Humans have burned enough fossil fuels to drive atmospheric CO2 to levels that world hasn’t seen in at least 400,000 years. That’s driven up temperatures, melted ice and caused oceans to acidify. Some extreme weather events around the world have become more likely and stronger because of it, and some will likely only get worse as the planet continues to warm.

Because CO2 sits in the atmosphere long after it’s burned, that means we’ve likely lived our last week in a sub-400 ppm world. It also means that the reshaping of our planet will continue for decades and centuries to come, even if climate talks in Paris in two weeks are successful.

To get some perspective on what this means for the world, we asked leading climate scientists for their insight on passing this milestone as well as what it means for their particular areas of research. Below are their answers, some edited lightly for clarity or length.

How Do You Feel About CO2 Levels Passing This Threshold?

Ralph Keeling, director of the Scripps CO2 Program: “It will take some getting used to psychologically, like a round-numbered birthday. For someone who remembers when CO2 was only around 330 ppm, it's a pretty big change.”

Jason Box, ice researcher at the Geologic Survey of Denmark and Greenland: “I feel very concerned because the last time atmospheric CO2 was this high, global sea levels were at least six meters higher. You can see a recent study by Andrea Dutton and others on sea level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods.”

Michael Mann, climatologist at Penn State University: “Well, it is a sad milestone. CO2 levels were about 320 ppm when I was born in 1965. It is shocking to realize that they’ve gone up 80 ppm over the course of my lifetime.”

Katharine Hayhoe, atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University: “As a scientist, the difference between 399 ppm vs. 401 ppm is negligible.

As a human, though, passing both the 400 ppm and (potentially) the 1°C threshold within such a short time period makes it clear we are already living in a different world. We have blown past targets that were being considered as viable when I entered graduate school. We have significantly reduced the options available to us in the future. If we aren’t going to blow past the next set of thresholds — 500 ppm and 2°C — within just a few more decades, we have a lot of work to do in Paris in two weeks and beyond.”

Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute: “In some ways, the number 400 ppm is no different than 395 ppm or 390 ppm — it is just that we like watching our odometers turn over at even numbers with lots of zeros. But this feels far more important than pure symbolism. The truth is, when I was born, atmospheric CO2 levels were around 300 ppm. Today — maybe even this week — will be the last time anyone alive experiences a level below 400 ppm, and no one born in the coming century or even longer will ever see less than 400 ppm again. That is a deep, deep observation, with ramifications for our children and for every future generation.”

Pieter Tans, head of the Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases Group at the Environmental System Research Laboratory: “What do I feel about this? Awe! To me, it demonstrates the continuing and unavoidable rise of CO2 as long as mankind continues to burn coal, oil, and natural gas in quantities so large that natural systems are being overwhelmed.”

Projections,……

Scenarios:

• INDC Strict – No change after national contribution pledge period: 3.5°C (6.3°F);
• Ratchet 1 – Plus, pledged reductions continue after pledges end (2025 or 2030): 3.2°C (5.8°F);
• Ratchet 2 – Plus, China includes other GHGs and reduces emissions after they peak in 2030 at up to 2%/year: 3.0°C (5.4°F);
• Ratchet 3 – Plus, other developing countries without commitment also peak by 2035: 2.6°C (4.6°F);
• 2 Degree Path – Plus, all countries peak and then reduce 3.5% per year: 2.0°C (3.6°F).

For those that don’t know CO2e

Originally Posted by Umbuku

That's why it's full of extinct plant fossils...

I think that stumped him.

**RPETER65** · 23-11-2015, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Neo

So for the sake of integrity do you have any data that would back that up?

Yes.......

**RPETER65** · 23-11-2015, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by hazz

this would be the god did it, enough said or else school of faith based truth

let me guess peters.... you believe that sinbad and his flying carpet roves that there is no such thing as gravity

That was wrong and really dumb.

**RPETER65** · 23-11-2015, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by thaimeme

Originally Posted by Neo

So for the sake of integrity do you have any data that would back that up?

The Christian Bible....

That and science.

**RPETER65** · 23-11-2015, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by Neo

He's certainly taking his time, must be double checking the data before posting...

No I slept, are you in a hurry?

**Neo** · 23-11-2015, 09:44 AM

Considering that the science on the formation of fossil fuels is irrefutable I am quite looking forward to see the data that rewrites science and history, such a significant breakthrough that I'm surprised I haven't heard about it before, so go ahead and reveal your data.

**RPETER65** · 23-11-2015, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by Neo

Considering that the science on the formation of fossil fuels is irrefutable I am quite looking forward to see the data that rewrites science and history, such a significant breakthrough that I'm surprised I haven't heard about it before, so go ahead and reveal your data.

Not rewrightin history,more a creationist view of the time and why,busy now later

Coal Beds and Noah’s Flood

by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling on June 1, 1986
Share:
Originally published in Creation 8, no 3 (June 1986): 20-21.

Coal beds formed from plant debris catastrophically buried by Noah’s Flood about 4,500 years ago?

Awesome Science Volumes 1 - 10 Shop Now
Evolutionists believe that the material in coal beds accumulated over millions of years in quiet swamp environments like the Everglades of Florida. Evolutionary geologists often object to the creationists’ explanation of coal bed formation, so what are their arguments and what answers do we give to them?

Some geologists have claimed that even if all the vegetation on earth was suddenly converted to coal this would make a coal deposit only 1-3% of the known coal reserves on earth. Hence at least 33 Noah’s Floods are needed, staggered in time, to generate our known coal beds. Therefore a single Noah’s Flood cannot be the cause of coal formation.

This argument is based on valid estimates of the volume of vegetation currently on today’s land surfaces. But it assumes that at least 12 metres of vegetation are needed to produce one metre of coal (eg. Holmes, 1965). Modern research shows that less than two metres of vegetation are needed to make one metre of coal. Some observations made by coal geologists working in mines (e.g. the compaction of coal around clay ‘balls’ included in some coal beds) suggest that the compaction ratio is probably much less than 2:1 and more likely very close to 1:1. These observations destroy this objection to coal bed formation during Noah’s Flood, since instead of today’s vegetation volume only compacting down to 1-3% of known coal reserves, today’s vegetation volume would compact down to at least 30% of the known coal reserves. But where did the other 60% come from?

Two other factors are very relevant here. The evolutionists’ argument based on the volume of vegetation on today’s land surface ignores the fact that 60% of today’s land surface is covered by deserts or only sparse vegetation. In addition, there are the vast icy wastes of Antarctica beneath which are rock layers containing thick coal beds. So if all of today’s land surface was covered with the lush vegetation suggested by Antarctica’s coal beds, under the influence of a global sub-tropical greenhouse effect before Noah’s Flood—implied by the Bible’s description of the ‘waters above’ (the so-called water vapour canopy) and the mist that watered the ground daily (instead of today’s unreliable intermittent rain) - then the volume of such vegetation on today’s land surface would be sufficient to produce at least another 50% of the known coal reserves. So what about the remaining 10%?

But this all assumes that the area of land surface available for vegetation growth has always been the same. This assumption simply is not correct. In Genesis 1:9-10 we are told of God’s work at the outset of the third day of Creation Week, when He gathered the waters (which initially covered the entire globe) into one place so as to let the dry land appear. God called the waters ‘seas’ (plural), but they were gathered together in one place. This implies that, instead of land masses surrounded by seas (today’s world), in the pre-Flood world there was one sea surrounded by one large land mass. The language used in Scripture also implies that there was probably more land area then on the face of the globe than ‘seas’ (see Taylor, 1982). This being the case therefore, it is likely that there was at least twice as much land area available for vegetation growth in the pre-Flood world compared with today’s world (i.e. at least 60% land versus 40% sea in the pre-Flood world compared with today’s roughly 30% land verses 70% oceans). If then this vast land area was under lush vegetation, then we can account for 100% of the known coal reserves.

A Better Way
But there is another way of comparing vegetation growth and volume with the known coal beds, a way that is probably far more reliable, and that is by comparing the stored energy in vegetation with that in coal. International authority on solar energy, Mary Archer, has stated that the amount of solar energy falling on the earth’s surface in 14 days is equal to the known energy of the world’s supply of fossil fuels. She also said that only . 03 % of the solar energy arriving at the earth’s surface is stored as chemical energy in vegetation through photosynthetic processes. (Journal of Applied Electrochemistry, Vol. 5, 1975, p. 17) From this information we can estimate how many years of today’s plant growth would be required to produce the stored energy equivalent in today’s known coal reserves:

Divide 14 days by .03%
i.e. (14 x 100)/.03 days equals 46,667 days or 128 years of solar input via photosynthesis.
So we can conclude that only 128 years of plant growth at today’s rate and volume is all that is required to provide the energy equivalent stored in today’s known coal beds! There was, of course, ample time between Creation and Noah’s Flood for such plant growth to occur—1600 years, in fact.

Conclusion
Either way, whether by comparison of energy stored in vegetation growth and in coal (i.e. the time factor), or by vegetation growth, climate, geography, land area and compaction ratio (i.e. the volume factor), we can show conclusively that the evolutionist’s objection is totally invalid. There was ample time, space and vegetation growth for one Noah’s Flood to produce all of today’s known coal beds.

www.answersingenises.org

**Neo** · 23-11-2015, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Some geologists have claimed that even if all the vegetation on earth was suddenly converted to coal this would make a coal deposit only 1-3% of the known coal reserves on earth. Hence at least 33 Noah’s Floods are needed, staggered in time, to generate our known coal beds. Therefore a single Noah’s Flood cannot be the cause of coal formation.

This argument is based on valid estimates of the volume of vegetation currently on today’s land surfaces. But it assumes that at least 12 metres of vegetation are needed to produce one metre of coal (eg. Holmes, 1965). Modern research shows that less than two metres of vegetation are needed to make one metre of coal. Some observations made by coal geologists working in mines (e.g. the compaction of coal around clay ‘balls’ included in some coal beds) suggest that the compaction ratio is probably much less than 2:1 and more likely very close to 1:1. These observations destroy this objection to coal bed formation during Noah’s Flood

Let's all take a moment to laugh at Our Peter

I seriously doubt that even you actually believe the twaddle you've just posted. How is that in any shape or form data? And you have the gall to come on this thread and claim that the evidence put before you by other posters has no integrity.!!

Modern research shows that less than two metres of vegetation are needed to make one metre of coal. Some observations made by coal geologists working in mines (e.g. the compaction of coal around clay ‘balls’ included in some coal beds) suggest that the compaction ratio is probably much less than 2:1 and more likely very close to 1:1

Let's see the research that this fantasy is based on then Our Peter

**Neo** · 23-11-2015, 02:48 PM

Oh hold on... there is one expert testimony

International authority on solar energy, Mary Archer, has stated that the amount of solar energy falling on the earth’s surface in 14 days is equal to the known energy of the world’s supply of fossil fuels

You don't even to look into the credibility of 'international authority Mary Archer' to know that is pure pie in the sky cloud cuckoo land thinking. A fortnights energy from the sun may give everyone a pretty decent tan, but do you really think that's enough energy to power an industrial revolution and the continuing rise of global industry... I mean really Our Peter?

**RPETER65** · 23-11-2015, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by Neo

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Some geologists have claimed that even if all the vegetation on earth was suddenly converted to coal this would make a coal deposit only 1-3% of the known coal reserves on earth. Hence at least 33 Noah’s Floods are needed, staggered in time, to generate our known coal beds. Therefore a single Noah’s Flood cannot be the cause of coal formation.

This argument is based on valid estimates of the volume of vegetation currently on today’s land surfaces. But it assumes that at least 12 metres of vegetation are needed to produce one metre of coal (eg. Holmes, 1965). Modern research shows that less than two metres of vegetation are needed to make one metre of coal. Some observations made by coal geologists working in mines (e.g. the compaction of coal around clay ‘balls’ included in some coal beds) suggest that the compaction ratio is probably much less than 2:1 and more likely very close to 1:1. These observations destroy this objection to coal bed formation during Noah’s Flood

Let's all take a moment to laugh at Our Peter

I seriously doubt that even you actually believe the twaddle you've just posted. How is that in any shape or form data? And you have the gall to come on this thread and claim that the evidence put before you by other posters has no integrity.!!

Modern research shows that less than two metres of vegetation are needed to make one metre of coal. Some observations made by coal geologists working in mines (e.g. the compaction of coal around clay ‘balls’ included in some coal beds) suggest that the compaction ratio is probably much less than 2:1 and more likely very close to 1:1

Let's see the research that this fantasy is based on then Our Peter

I have been waiting for your assigning reply, you are no more than a twat you who has posted nothing to refute what I have posted I doubt you even read the entire post. Can you without a doubt prove anything in this post to false, no you cannot.
Come on you are quick to laugh when someone disagrees with you, well let's see you back it up, and don't say it is my place to prove, it is your place to back up your shit.

**bsnub** · 23-11-2015, 03:06 PM

Oh this is good.

**AntRobertson** · 23-11-2015, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Coal Beds and Noah’s Flood

**Neo** · 23-11-2015, 03:12 PM

Two things Our Peter

I have been waiting for your assigning reply, you are no more than a twat you who has posted nothing to refute what I have posted I doubt you even read the entire post. Can you without a doubt prove anything in this post to false, no you cannot.

I have read the whole post and it doesn't constitute data in any shape or form.

Come on you are quick to laugh when someone disagrees with you, well let's see you back it up, and don't say it is my place to prove, it is your place to back up your shit.

Actually no, the onus is still on you to prove that you have any intellectual integrity, which is if you recall the point of the discussion we are having. Look at the data posted in this thread from NASA and IPCC, that is hard scientific evidence, until you can offer a similar level of integrity to prove your hypotheses you will always be considered as a charlatan whose only value is comedic.

So post away Our Peter... why not look a little more into the findings of 'international authority Mary Archer' and come back with the hard data she has based her findings on, should make for a bit of light entertainment...

in the meantime, I shall just continue to laugh at your self imposed ignorance

Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions