What is this Global Warming You Speak Of?

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
No absolutes in science?
How about absolute zero, which is NOT a religious concept, it's a scientific one
That's not the kind of thing I was talking about and I'm sure you know that.
Science and Math go hand in hand and math is full of absolutes
Yes, but science and mathematics are different things. Mathematics is one of the tools of science, but it's not science itself. As a convenient conceptual shorthand, I think of it this way: mathematics is the study of all possible patterns, science is the study of those that actually occur.
"what exactly does scientific method mean to you?"
It means observing and noting how things behave and what happens, drawing generalizations from those observations that can apply to a broader range of phenomena, trying to predict something from those generalizations that hasn't been observed, then testing to see if it can be observed. If it is, it lends confirmation to the generalization, if it's not the generalization may be false, try again. Ultimately the generalization may attain the status of a theory if enough evidence accumulates in support of it, or it may be shown to be inconsistent with what we observe, and will be rejected. What we refer to as the laws of nature are just broad generalizations of what we've observed of how things behave. A legitimate scientific theory, in other words, must be empirical, testable, predictive, and, at least in principle, falsifiable.

Dex, all your schooling did is give you an ego that doesn't let you admit you can be in error. You have been out long enough that the newest information is not something you have been keeping up with.
If you're going to start with an ad hominem fallacy and claim I haven't learned anything since I left school, you have violated the rules of civilized discussion and I'm not going to talk to you about this beyond pointing out that the expanding earth hypothesis is a glaring example of scientific illiteracy: no plausible mechanism, not consistent with observations, and predicts things that don't occur.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
IPCC Forgets Antarctic Ocean Circulation and Can’t Explain New Record Arctic Ice Growth


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NaP0I1kV5w&index=11&list=PL00u99IRraJtn38lgAequUjcZR_uFnkdY

If you're going to start with an ad hominem fallacy and claim I haven't learned anything since I left school, you have violated the rules of civilized discussion and I'm not going to talk to you about this beyond pointing out that the expanding earth hypothesis is a glaring example of scientific illiteracy: no plausible mechanism, not consistent with observations, and predicts things that don't occur.
Really?? So the Atlantic has never gotten wider in all of history?? The map tells the story and you have nothing that refutes it other than your personal opinion.
 

Murphy

Executive Branch Member
Apr 12, 2013
8,181
0
36
Ontario
As we can see, neither side is coming out a clear winner.

I dedicate this to the earth.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gttIc5avsZw
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
As with most things nothing is in black or white. In places where oceanic crust goes under continental plates the mud and a certain amount of rocky material is scraped off. That material should be able to be used to determine how much force is needed to do that. In the 200M rears that the Rockies have existed the Pacific rift has advanced westward so it is just off the coast of BC today. The distance can be used to determine the rate the rift was moving. The topography of BC is 'foothills' and that is the folding that took place as the 'mud' was removed as the land was a shallow sea before the Rockies formed.
If you go back far enough the moon would have been closer and the tides were made up of molten rock rather than water. Since there were no shorelines to interfere with the tidal bulge the rock could form itself intp layers determined by gravitational interactions rather than being sediment on a sea floor. That long ago the rotation was much faster and the core would have been denser than it is today. Cold material is always a smaller volume than a warm or hot version of the same amount of the same matter.

If you take a soccer ball up in a helium balloon it may expand to the size of a basket-ball and if you take it down in the deepest trench in the ocean it might get as small as a softball.

On earth the expansion was caused by a blizzard of ice coming down in one event that allowed the ice to blanket the planet. That ice reduced the radiation factor that had been in balance for eons. The R-value of the ice kept heat in and the internal heat began to build until expansion took place at a rate that caused the new crust to crack like an egg will of if it is dropped into boiling water. If it is put in cold water and that is brought to a boil the shell will not crack. Before the ice the surface of the whole planet would have been in a polished mirror state rather than volcanoes or big splashed from meteors. They would plop in like a rock into mud.

Another 'subduction zone ' involves the rift at Iceland and Ireland and the UK. When viewed in Googleearth it shows those islands are going out to sea and the submerged bump used to be an island above the waves but the effects of subduction is rolling some land under and that will push the main coast of the EU higher due to that factor.

Any thoughts on the validity of the theory??
 

Murphy

Executive Branch Member
Apr 12, 2013
8,181
0
36
Ontario
Nope. Not my area.

While chit-chat is fine, in this case, I prefer to listen to scientists debate their theories. You folks carry on. I am content to watch. I am an eco-voyeur.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Their posts are always short and meaningless so they have no lasting value if something better comes along. Since you show some interest I will carry on but beware what I am about to do will bring every troll for miles around. Using the theory as far as I have so far I'll pick it up 4 billion years ago using Genesis:1 as the model for the development of the earth that meshes with what we currently know as being 'most likely' The sequence suggested in the bible is based on when Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden in 4,005BC. The 5 is valid according to somebody who did the math but we can drop it for this. The important part is that we can relate to the days having a zero knocked off or added depending on which days you are looking at. If I was going to look at that date I would want to know if it was a year with 2 days in a row being 'important to God already'. This last year had Passover and the weekly Sabbath back to back again just like it was in the year of the cross. In the movie version time would start moving backwards from there based on the Apostles reactions, best left for when the trolls show up.

4,000BC is the end of day 7 and God sends mankind out of the 'Garden'. That garden would be possible because at the time the area was getting rains caused by the conditions that come with every ice-age.
40,000BC He and Eve were the normal relationship between a man and a woman and that was the start of the 'family era as we know it today.
400,000BC is when the Garden area started to get rain and all the seeds that had blown in from the rest of the whole world started to grow and Adam started to name them. Land animals were named during the next 360,000 years as they came in after the land was green like the rest of Eden was. If we could recreate that on a computer it would give us a theory on what the weather patterns would be on a global stage. It is highly probable that our winter conditions and the winter conditions from South America would eliminate the desert belt that circles the globe. That theme has yet to have been explored by 'scientists' and the reason behind that is it promotes that hunger will end for those that adapt to the coming changes. There goes the #1 control device of all time.
4,000,000 is when time and the seas began to form into the condition we find them today,
40,000,000 is when forests as we know it came into existence, that would have been a process that covered the planet by 40,000BC, the end of day 6. An expanding earth model would be equaled today by the model of a spinning figure skater, as the arms come out the same mass begins to rotate at a reduced rate. That along with the extra distance would account for the difference in the length of a day from being about 6 hours to the (around) 24hrs we use today. The orbits of the moon and sun we established at that time also. The ones being taught at that time were the angelic beings that could remain alive without any need for a 'garden' and the food and air it provided.
400,000,000 is when water existed. On 'Eden' that would have been the beginning of the rise of mountains and the cold from deep space cooled the surface of the magma and it began to buckle and twist into mountain chains that still exist today. The cause of that was in the last post, Snowball Earth is the name of the documentary, the melting would have come about by the internal temperature going up just like it would in a pressure cooker, eventually the 'weak part' lets go and you have expansion of the crust beginning with the elevation that began as hills and ended up as mountain ranges. Unlike promoted by science there has been almost no weathering let alone several miles of the Rockies being 'washed away'. If the ice had melted then the planet should have been one shallow sea and the rising land ended up getting the first rain and that caused the first plant life to begin on earth, That process had the planet covered except for the land area in Ge:2. On a global scale that would be when the ice-age came to an end and the rains stopped and the desert belt came into existence. Depending on the future weather patterns we could be returning to that same climate, a change that could take 360,000 years in all.
4,000,000,000 the earth was a ball of molten rock spinning at a higher rate and the material would still have been layered due to gravity, in the next 3,600,000,000 years the condition changed so water could be found in 2 forms, liquid (as rain) and vapor (as a cloud cover due to the heat of the planet melting the ice before it had any hills to land on and remain, by the time they were mountains forests existed. Forests that we could relate to today along with the birds and such)
The consequences is the current model would need a few changes and that isn't about to happen.
Water came first in the form of rain and no seas. Mountain tops had the first life and the plants gave earth it's O2 so birds could breath. Air, sea, land was the sequence of life on this planet and they are separate species, whales are an adaption of a bird leaning to fly in water rather than the air.

This vid would make for a list of things that 'science' would like to bury for good.

 

Hoof Hearted

House Member
Jul 23, 2016
4,258
995
113
I thought cow farts were destroying the Ozone Layer. So I say it's time we bought Oprah and Sally Struthers some butt plugs.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Everybody has one.
How does your version of history go?? No pressure to make it a short post so fly at it, the floor is yours.