Science of Global Warming

[Sier]

Science will always be at odds with religion as long as religion makes claims about the material world: if your religion claims the existence of the supernatural (angels, or demons), or the existence of "soul" in humans, or the existence of traditional notion of "free will", or the existence of "miracles", or claims a particular history for humans that is at odds with biology (i.e., creationism, being descended from only a couple, humans living for centuries in the past, existence of giant humans, etc.), or claims about particular history of Earth and universe (young Earth, or flat Earth) then it will be at odds with science.

Religion should never be at odds with science. That's how misconceptions of creationists as ignorant clowns arises. When I see a creationist ignore science, I try to encourage them to learn more about the areas they are struggling with to reaffirm their own faith.

You should note that by your own statement, you yourself are affirming your own faith in an area. You affirm that you have faith that matter was always here or sprang from nothing, and that there is no designer behind that process.

However, you should also note that we already live in an age where we show that worlds can be created, to a degree.

Michael Hartman typed a world into existence. In that world, denizens who are completely unaware of our own flourish (NPCs), and will continue to do so unless Michael Hartman pulls a plug on that world. There are also travelers from another reality who come to stir things up! (Players) There are rules and laws to that world and denizens may or may not be given some capacity for decision making.

To say that we ourselves may not have another world parallel to our own which may or may not follow the same laws, concepts of time, matter, energy, is a decision of the highest level of blind faith, because not only have countless digital world's have been designed at this point by lowly humans, but we come closer and closer each day to giving them a thought process similar to our own.

Religion works with a set of evidences, historical documents, and faith that this world is not the only world. Just as with science, religion can and will be used for good or evil. But you should not discredit another supreme being and reality being the cause of our own, as you can literally watch this happen to an extent in our own reality. In fact - Logic dictates that if we as humanity have created some 50,000 digital worlds of our own at this point, statistics are that we live alongside one. While I do not prescribe to the "We are all a simulation" scenario to the same degree as some philosophers might, I do give some aspects of their arguments credence.

I'll try to provide responses to your other points shortly.

[Kirzad]

Religion should never be at odds with science. That's how misconceptions of creationists as ignorant clowns arises. When I see a creationist ignore science, I try to encourage them to learn more about the areas they are struggling with to reaffirm their own faith.

You should note that by your own statement, you yourself are affirming your own faith in an area. You affirm that you have faith that matter was always here or sprang from nothing, and that there is no designer behind that process.

However, you should also note that we already live in an age where we show that worlds can be created, to a degree.

Michael Hartman typed a world into existence. In that world, denizens who are completely unaware of our own flourish (NPCs), and will continue to do so unless Michael Hartman pulls a plug on that world. There are also travelers from another reality who come to stir things up! (Players) There are rules and laws to that world and denizens may or may not be given some capacity for decision making.

To say that we ourselves may not have another world parallel to our own which may or may not follow the same laws, concepts of time, matter, energy, is a decision of the highest level of blind faith, because not only have countless digital world's have been designed at this point by lowly humans, but we come closer and closer each day to giving them a thought process similar to our own.

Religion works with a set of evidences, historical documents, and faith that this world is not the only world. Just as with science, religion can and will be used for good or evil. But you should not discredit another supreme being and reality being the cause of our own, as you can literally watch this happen to an extent in our own reality. In fact - Logic dictates that if we as humanity have created some 50,000 digital worlds of our own at this point, statistics are that we live alongside one. While I do not prescribe to the "We are all a simulation" scenario to the same degree as some philosophers might, I do give some aspects of their arguments credence.

I'll try to provide responses to your other points shortly.

I don't mean this as a troll. I mean it as a warning to Xywalan. Read the quoted. Recognize that every word included in it speaks of one conclusion: Willful Disregard of Reality. Get out now. You will not succeed in convincing the religious of the ridiculousness of their abandonment of critical thought. They have a belief, and the world will either lie to itself and go along with that belief, or they will stick their fingers in their ears, loudly say "NANANANANANANANA" and use the most convoluted logic (as is very evidently displayed in the quote) to maintain their stance.

Don't continue to torture yourself. You knew coming in to this what you were going to get. You got it. Get out! Please.

[Sier]

I don't mean this as a troll. I mean it as a warning to Xywalan. Read the quoted. Recognize that every word included in it speaks of one conclusion: Willful Disregard of Reality. Get out now. You will not succeed in convincing the religious of the ridiculousness of their abandonment of critical thought. They have a belief, and the world will either lie to itself and go along with that belief, or they will stick their fingers in their ears, loudly say "NANANANANANANANA" and use the most convoluted logic (as is very evidently displayed in the quote) to maintain their stance.

Don't continue to torture yourself. You knew coming in to this what you were going to get. You got it. Get out! Please.

Sounds like trolling. I just advised you several points in critical thought. You chose not to respond to them, so you are the one abandoning the thought process.

Not one part of the post was willfully disregarding reality. It was willfully questioning, and defining different possibilities of reality.

If that is willfully disregarding reality, René Descartes is also, likewise guilty for questioning existence.

I question if one reality is the only reality, because we as a society have -proven- we can create alternate realities with the advent of digital worlds and broaching upon AI. How much more odd would it be to state that we ourselves were created, and we ourselves were designed with the potential for thought? It's by no means a "Convoluted comparison". You literally own a character in an alternate reality. You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss evidence, as you yourself are suggesting.

[Xywalan]

You should note that by your own statement, you yourself are affirming your own faith in an area. You affirm that you have faith that matter was always here or sprang from nothing, and that there is no designer behind that process.

This is getting slightly OT but nonetheless since it is about science I'll continue.

The quote is another common misconception. To be specific, it is a common accusation that everyone relies on some faith; that either you have faith that there is nothing but the material world or you have faith that there is a creator. This is the type of thinking that the religious mindset produces.

However, it is wrong. The history of physics is long but through both theory and experimentation, we have arrived at the current understanding of the universe that is best captured by "The Standard Model". We know it is incomplete but to see "new physics", we have to either go to large distances, very small scales, or very high energies. The picture painted by the "Standard Model", e.g., leaves no room for the traditional notion of "freewill" and "soul" or else it would imply something outside its rules that interacts with very visible effects with matter at ordinary energies. In other words, if you believe in "soul" or traditional notion of freewill, you are believing that the known rules of physics are constantly being violated at the room temperature, all the time, at every person's head, or body. That is a completely unscientific belief as it has no basis in any of the principles of science.

[Xywalan]

I don't mean this as a troll. I mean it as a warning to Xywalan. Read the quoted. Recognize that every word included in it speaks of one conclusion: Willful Disregard of Reality. Get out now. You will not succeed in convincing the religious of the ridiculousness of their abandonment of critical thought. They have a belief, and the world will either lie to itself and go along with that belief, or they will stick their fingers in their ears, loudly say "NANANANANANANANA" and use the most convoluted logic (as is very evidently displayed in the quote) to maintain their stance.

Don't continue to torture yourself. You knew coming in to this what you were going to get. You got it. Get out! Please.

I know that when it comes to discussions like these, it is really not about facts.

You cannot convince the religious with facts or logic because very often the reasons they are religious do not include facts or logic and I don't mean this to be insulting at all. The reasons to be religious could be many things. It could be fear of death. It could be fear of losing meaning. It could be fear of losing social connection. It could be fear of facing the realization that there is no 'divine justice'. It could be fear of facing the fact that 'they will never see their dead parent, family member, loved ones, etc.'. It could be fear of unsettling a picture of the world that is built through a lifetime of reading, and exploration. The world without god could be scary, or terrible. A lot of the religious ask questions such as 'How someone can be good without God?' which suggests God is an extremely important part of their lives.

And frankly, I don't have a problem with personal religion but when it comes to issues of science, I have to be honest and say that most religious beliefs contradict science.

[Sier]

How is that relevant? We can talking about how much humans have added CO2. You can calculate that by figuring out how much fossil fuel we have burned, how many trees we have cut down and so on. It has nothing to do with the age of Earth.

It is relevant in that you can not prove or disprove whether or not what is occuring is part of a patern of weather behavior, or artificial.

You can disagree all you want but that's not how science work. You do not come up with an arbitrary test and demand that the scientists follow your method. Science is essentially detective work with nature.

And for this particular point, your demand that "we must be able to separate CO2 molecules in the air coming from human activities" is arbitrary and useless.

I am not demanding scientists conform to my method. I am demanding that if scientists declare humans to be responsible for global warming, their evidence proves such. For this, you have to seperate human based CO2.

What? That literally was the topic of points 1 and 2 I made earlier and you said you agreed with them.

Let me rephrase that, I disagree that human caused CO2 is the main contributor of global warming. See ice cube in warm bath tub analogy from earlier.

All data that come from ice cores are calibrated. The assumption that you mentioned is not really how it works over very long periods of time. It does not matter if we have 100 years of anomaly in tens or hundreds of thousands of years as it will all average out. It is all the matter of getting statistics right.

That's the problem. Much of the time you're averaging bogus data with bogus data. The average of two sets of bogus data is going to be somewhere in the middle of...well, the bogus data. I cited one example where the data is incorrect by a HUGE margin. How many examples would be neccessary to convince one that the data is categorically wrong?

It's the same misunderstanding. You need only a calibration step and then you can throw away the "uniformity" assumption because you are working with a statistical aggregate.

I'm unsure as to how one could calibrate current ice core methods for unknown past catastrophies (And know whether those catastrophies were local or global). I certainly have not seen it in any of the scientific data.

I'm prepared to listen if you know of the methodology for how they make this happen.

That is absolutely false. We can just blow just a fraction of total number of nukes and burn off a rain forest here and there to essentially create a nuclear winter. The ability to completely fuck up the climate of Earth has always been there.

I'll concede this scenario to you.

[Sier]

I know that when it comes to discussions like these, it is really not about facts.

You cannot convince the religious with facts or logic because very often the reasons they are religious do not include facts or logic and I don't mean this to be insulting at all. The reasons to be religious could be many things. It could be fear of death. It could be fear of losing meaning. It could be fear of losing social connection. It could be fear of facing the realization that there is no 'divine justice'. It could be fear of facing the fact that 'they will never see their dead parent, family member, loved ones, etc.'. It could be fear of unsettling a picture of the world that is built through a lifetime of reading, and exploration. The world without god could be scary, or terrible. A lot of the religious ask questions such as 'How someone can be good without God?' which suggests God is an extremely important part of their lives.

And frankly, I don't have a problem with personal religion but when it comes to issues of science, I have to be honest and say that most religious beliefs contradict science.

Except it is about facts and logic.

Logically, humans can create digital environments (worlds). Logically, humans can create digital beings who exhibit some form of thought (Granted, we're not there YET with AI). Logically, we have created over 781 million digital worlds to date, as Steam Charts currently show. These are facts.

Logically, the laws of thermodynamics state the entirety of the universe should have suffered heat death infinity years ago (If you believe the universe always existed). I state infinity because, after all, some atheists believe the universe always existed.

Logically, the laws of thermodynamics state that energy cannot be created, or destroyed (If you believe the universe started with a big bang). Scientists are all over the place backtracking on the big bang theory, erasing the board of it, and trying to make sense of it.

Logically, the fundamental claim that matter can never move faster than the speed of light disproves the age of the universe, as the universe itself is claimed to be 13.8 billion years old, but the universe is 46 billion light years in diameter. Scientists are, again, all over the place trying to make sense of this. The theory is space itself is expanding...which trips all over itself as a theory.

Disregarding "Logic", You are asserting that our reality is the first and only reality. Can you really, fully make that ascertain?

If you state that you can, that is the foundation of atheism. If you state you cannot, that is the foundation for agnosticism, and it at least is a step in the right direction to say "I do not know the answer, but I work with the evidence I have."

By stating "These discussions are never about the facts", you are lumping myself and others in with those who have a more "Blind faith". It is an incorrect assessment.

I can appreciate several of your points we are discussing, and how you come across some of your logic. We are both working with empirical evidence. We disagree on what the evidence is saying, that is all.


What I do appreciate about science is that it gives you a closer look into HOW things were accomplished. During the Creation, was matter generated, or sculpted? Was time dilation due to matter (or lack thereof) a part of the equation during the 6 days of Genesis? Were the laws of nature put into place before or after creation, and do they hold weight in God's realm? I can for my part state "I don't know the answers to any of these things", but I do love at least seeing how the clock ticks.

[Xywalan]

It is relevant in that you can not prove or disprove whether or not what is occuring is part of a patern of weather behavior, or artificial.

I'm still not sure what is the point. For example, total daily oil consumption is around 93 million barrel per day. That adds a particular amount of CO2, whether you like it or not.

I am not demanding scientists conform to my method. I am demanding that if scientists declare humans to be responsible for global warming, their evidence proves such. For this, you have to seperate human based CO2.

LOL. You have a funny way of not demanding they do your way by demanding they do it your way. If this is part of your main argument against AGW, I'm sorry but it will be laughed at. It's similar to a lawyer saying, "They only way you can prove my client is guilty, is that you show a video of him doing! No other way! If he's guilty show a video! No other evidence counts!"

Let me rephrase that, I disagree that human caused CO2 is the main contributor of global warming. See ice cube in warm bath tub analogy from earlier.

Again that contradicts your earlier examples, unless you want to claim that the very rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 which is inconsistent with natural causes and consistent with human patter of activity either (a) is not happening, we are all dreaming, all data are wrong, or (b) it's all natural. Which is it?

That's the problem. Much of the time you're averaging bogus data with bogus data.

Bogus data? Heh! I hit another bingo!

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/gla...e-core-basics/

The large Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have huge, high plateaux where snow accumulates in an ordered fashion. Slow ice flow at the centre of these ice sheets (near the ice divide) means that the stratigraphy of the snow and ice is preserved. Drilling a vertical hole through this ice involves a serious effort involving many scientists and technicians, and usually involves a static field camp for a prolonged period of time.

Shallow ice cores (100-200 m long) are easier to collect and can cover up to a few hundred years of accumulation, depending on accumulation rates. Deeper cores require more equipment, and the borehole must be filled with drill fluid to keep it open. The drill fluid used is normally a petroleum-derived liquid like kerosene. It must have a suitable freezing point and viscosity. Collecting the deepest ice cores (up to 3000 m) requires a (semi)permanent scientific camp and a long, multi-year campaign[6].

(notice how nobody assumes that rate of snow accumulation is constant all the time)


The layers in an ice core:
http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-...ore_layers.png

Of course, you should not believe your lying eyes, it's all bogus data! If your observations disagree with your parties taxation policy, don't believe your eyes!

If we want to reconstruct past air temperatures, one of the most critical parameters is the age of the ice being analysed. Fortunately, ice cores preserve annual layers, making it simple to date the ice. Seasonal differences in the snow properties create layers – just like rings in trees. Unfortunately, annual layers become harder to see deeper in the ice core. Other ways of dating ice cores include geochemisty, layers of ash (tephra), electrical conductivity, and using numerical flow models to understand age-depth relationships.

Accumulation rate

The thickness of the annual layers in ice cores can be used to derive a precipitation rate (after correcting for thinning by glacier flow). Past precipitation rates are an important palaeoenvironmental indicator, often correlated to climate change, and it’s an essential parameter for many past climate studies or numerical glacier simulations.

Melt layers

Ice cores provide us with lots of information beyond bubbles of gas in the ice. For example, melt layers are related to summer temperatures. More melt layers indicate warmer summer air temperatures. Melt layers are formed when the surface snow melts, releasing water to percolate down through the snow pack. They form bubble-free ice layers, visible in the ice core. The distribution of melt layers through time is a function of the past climate, and has been used, for example, to show increased melting in the Twentieth Century around the NE Antarctic Peninsula[8].

Past air temperatures

It is possible to discern past air temperatures from ice cores. This can be related directly to concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gasses preserved in the ice. Snow precipitation over Antarctica is made mostly of H216O molecules (99.7%). There are also rarer stable isotopes: H218O (0.2%) and HD16O (0.03%) (D is Deuterium, or 2H)[9]. Isotopic concentrations are expressed in per mil δ units (δD and δ18O) with respect to Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water (V-SMOW). Past precipitation can be used to reconstruct past palaeoclimatic temperatures. δD and δ18O is related to surface temperature at middle and high latitudes. The relationship is consistent and linear over Antarctica[9].

Snow falls over Antarctica and is slowly converted to ice. Stable isotopes of oxygen (Oxygen [16, 18O] and hydrogen [D/H]) are trapped in the ice in ice cores. The stable isotopes are measured in ice through a mass spectrometer. Measuring changing concentrations of δD and δ18O through time in layers through an ice core provides a detailed record of temperature change, going back hundreds of thousands of years.

Yeah, all this science is bogus data. You are not impressing any thinking and logical person with these arguments. And you are confirming my original belief that you really have got nothing and this is a complete waste of time on my part.

[Xywalan]

Except it is about facts and logic.

Logically, humans can create digital environments (worlds). Logically, humans can create digital beings who exhibit some form of thought (Granted, we're not there YET with AI). Logically, we have created over 781 million digital worlds to date, as Steam Charts currently show. These are facts.

Logically, the laws of thermodynamics state the entirety of the universe should have suffered heat death infinity years ago (If you believe the universe always existed). I state infinity because, after all, some atheists believe the universe always existed.

Logically, the laws of thermodynamics state that energy cannot be created, or destroyed (If you believe the universe started with a big bang). Scientists are all over the place backtracking on the big bang theory, erasing the board of it, and trying to make sense of it.

Logically, the fundamental claim that matter can never move faster than the speed of light disproves the age of the universe, as the universe itself is claimed to be 13.8 billion years old, but the universe is 46 billion light years in diameter. Scientists are, again, all over the place trying to make sense of this. The theory is space itself is expanding...which trips all over itself as a theory.

Disregarding "Logic", You are asserting that our reality is the first and only reality. Can you really, fully make that ascertain?

If you state that you can, that is the foundation of atheism. If you state you cannot, that is the foundation for agnosticism, and it at least is a step in the right direction to say "I do not know the answer, but I work with the evidence I have."

By stating "These discussions are never about the facts", you are lumping myself and others in with those who have a more "Blind faith". It is an incorrect assessment.

I can appreciate several of your points we are discussing, and how you come across some of your logic. We are both working with empirical evidence. We disagree on what the evidence is saying, that is all.


What I do appreciate about science is that it gives you a closer look into HOW things were accomplished. During the Creation, was matter generated, or sculpted? Was time dilation due to matter (or lack thereof) a part of the equation during the 6 days of Genesis? Were the laws of nature put into place before or after creation, and do they hold weight in God's realm? I can for my part state "I don't know the answers to any of these things", but I do love at least seeing how the clock ticks.

Except that your post has no facts and little logic. Digital environments are irrelevant and I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

Nobody claims that the universe has existed forever.

Law of thermodynamic is not really a law. It's a macro emergent behavior of the fundamental laws of physics which includes strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity, together with their zoo of particles, i.e., the standard model. In fact, nothing goes wrong if you assume the law of thermodynamic is incorrect, some theoretical physicists even use it to cook up new theories. Of course that you think law of thermodynamic is a law show how poor your knowledge is but this is the common occurrence with creationists and deniers of AGW.

It's cute how you think "space expanding trips over itself" but you can look up the papers. It's all backed by math and observations, the opposite of "tripping over itself". And yes, space is expanding that is what a space filled with energy does. Look up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

I'm not what the rest of your post means but I know that physicists are dying for an observation of violation of the standard model:

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=8686

The Nightmare Scenario

Now back from a short vacation, and there seems to have been a lot happening on the debate over fundamental physics front. From the experimentalists, news that the Standard Model continues to resist falsification:

So yes, we have spent millions and millions of dollars, to build a giant machine to falsify the standard model and we have failed so far.
And yet the religious notion of "soul" or "freewill" will require that the standard model is falsified inside every human's head. That's just absurd.

[Sier]

I'm still not sure what is the point. For example, total daily oil consumption is around 93 million barrel per day. That adds a particular amount of CO2, whether you like it or not.

I agree. We disagree on how much heat is held by the lingering CO2, as stated before.

Again - I am not stating CO2 doesn't work in that faction. I am stating it doesn't work to that extent, to that extreme.

LOL. You have a funny way of not demanding they do your way by demanding they do it your way. If this is part of your main argument against AGW, I'm sorry but it will be laughed at. It's similar to a lawyer saying, "They only way you can prove my client is guilty, is that you show a video of him doing! No other way! If he's guilty show a video! No other evidence counts!"

To take your own example, it is like looking at a video of your client owning a car, and assuming he used that car to drive to the murder scene without any other evidence. It is important to seperate human caused CO2 to create an accurate, historical snapshot (assuming you can even get an accurate, historical snapshot). Otherwise, it's extremely speculative science.

Again that contradicts your earlier examples, unless you want to claim that the very rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 which is inconsistent with natural causes and consistent with human patter of activity either (a) is not happening, we are all dreaming, all data are wrong, or (b) it's all natural. Which is it?

I am not claiming that. I am, however, claiming we do not have the data to make a correct ascertation. CO2 levels previous to a certain extremely recent point in time are measured based on ice core data and tree layer data. Both of which prove extremely unreliable (see other arguements).

In spite of all links and data you have posted, I still do not see how scientists differentiate between cataclymic events. For evolutionists, events such as meteor strikes, mass extinction events, and MAJOR volcanic eruption events (The big ones). For creationists, events such as the creation and the flood. We will not seperate the two, as cataclymic events occur in both belief systems.

Bogus data? Heh! I hit another bingo!

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/gla...e-core-basics/

That is an extremely basic article on how ice core measurements function, similar to the one I already posted. Your need to rely on sarcasm and humor devices in rhetoric is noted.

Two two points you had listed below are:

The large Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have huge, high plateaux where snow accumulates in an ordered fashion. Slow ice flow at the centre of these ice sheets (near the ice divide) means that the stratigraphy of the snow and ice is preserved. Drilling a vertical hole through this ice involves a serious effort involving many scientists and technicians, and usually involves a static field camp for a prolonged period of time.

Shallow ice cores (100-200 m long) are easier to collect and can cover up to a few hundred years of accumulation, depending on accumulation rates. Deeper cores require more equipment, and the borehole must be filled with drill fluid to keep it open. The drill fluid used is normally a petroleum-derived liquid like kerosene. It must have a suitable freezing point and viscosity. Collecting the deepest ice cores (up to 3000 m) requires a (semi)permanent scientific camp and a long, multi-year campaign[6].

The two quotes from that article do not mention how the scientists account for multiple ice layers, which have been proven to occur within the same year in many cases.

If we want to reconstruct past air temperatures, one of the most critical parameters is the age of the ice being analysed. Fortunately, ice cores preserve annual layers, making it simple to date the ice. Seasonal differences in the snow properties create layers – just like rings in trees. Unfortunately, annual layers become harder to see deeper in the ice core. Other ways of dating ice cores include geochemisty, layers of ash (tephra), electrical conductivity, and using numerical flow models to understand age-depth relationships.

Accumulation rate

The thickness of the annual layers in ice cores can be used to derive a precipitation rate (after correcting for thinning by glacier flow). Past precipitation rates are an important palaeoenvironmental indicator, often correlated to climate change, and it’s an essential parameter for many past climate studies or numerical glacier simulations.

Melt layers

Ice cores provide us with lots of information beyond bubbles of gas in the ice. For example, melt layers are related to summer temperatures. More melt layers indicate warmer summer air temperatures. Melt layers are formed when the surface snow melts, releasing water to percolate down through the snow pack. They form bubble-free ice layers, visible in the ice core. The distribution of melt layers through time is a function of the past climate, and has been used, for example, to show increased melting in the Twentieth Century around the NE Antarctic Peninsula[8].

Past air temperatures

It is possible to discern past air temperatures from ice cores. This can be related directly to concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gasses preserved in the ice. Snow precipitation over Antarctica is made mostly of H216O molecules (99.7%). There are also rarer stable isotopes: H218O (0.2%) and HD16O (0.03%) (D is Deuterium, or 2H)[9]. Isotopic concentrations are expressed in per mil δ units (δD and δ18O) with respect to Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water (V-SMOW). Past precipitation can be used to reconstruct past palaeoclimatic temperatures. δD and δ18O is related to surface temperature at middle and high latitudes. The relationship is consistent and linear over Antarctica[9].

Snow falls over Antarctica and is slowly converted to ice. Stable isotopes of oxygen (Oxygen [16, 18O] and hydrogen [D/H]) are trapped in the ice in ice cores. The stable isotopes are measured in ice through a mass spectrometer. Measuring changing concentrations of δD and δ18O through time in layers through an ice core provides a detailed record of temperature change, going back hundreds of thousands of years.

Again, the data is not accounting for multiple layers in one season. It is stating layers may be thicker. Note - It is completely feasible for up to 1000 ice layers to be formed in one year during an ice age. I would suggest perusing this article if you have time, granted it is a lengthy read: https://creation.com/do-greenland-ic...-annual-layers

Yeah, all this science is bogus data. You are not impressing any thinking and logical person with these arguments. And you are confirming my original belief that you really have got nothing and this is a complete waste of time on my part.

Not all of it. Data is data. The interpretation of the data, however, is flawed.

Nobody claims that the universe has existed forever.

Some scientists do. In what form it existed, they debate. You are not one of them.

Digital environments are irrelevant and I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

What tells you what what you see, smell, and hear is real? You have a central nervous system, and a brain that has literally been conditioned (PROGRAMMED) for certain responses. If you live within a box where natural laws are defined, you would never know there was another box unless someone (The programmer or someone from another box IE prophets, angels, etc) were to tell you. Here is a startling thought: If you were an NPC in a virtual world, how would you ever know?

This is not irrelevant, it illustrates a point. We as humans at our current level of technology can create environments. As our technology progresses, we will continue to create more and more sophisticated environments. What do our natural laws even matter to the worlds we create? If Aristotle redefined gravity in Threshold or turned off death, how complicated would it be? If someone outside our own box (universe) were to turn off death and redifine natural laws, how complicated would it be?

When you are quite literally an NPC in your own universe, it is admittedly difficult to think outside of the box (pun intended), but as we now have arguably living examples of virtual environments, it is not only speculation, but a logical conclusion that our own as possibly created.

You discount the possibility of a creator creating a world, yet we have literally seen it done to an extent 781 million times at a mere tiny fraction of what we suspect our own creator to be capable of.

While you may not credit human accomplishment as evidence that our own universe may have been created, you must credit it as evidence that *a* universe can be created.

Law of thermodynamic is not really a law. It's a macro emergent behavior of the fundamental laws of physics which includes strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity, together with their zoo of particles, i.e., the standard model. In fact, nothing goes wrong if you assume the law of thermodynamic is incorrect, some theoretical physicists even use it to cook up new theories. Of course that you think law of thermodynamic is a law show how poor your knowledge is but this is the common occurrence with creationists and deniers of AGW.

Except they are. Did the scientific community rename them to be the "Theories of Thermodynamics"? You disagreeing with the laws puts you at odds with quite a few scientists. It's ok if you, like me, disagree with some of the evidences though, even if they are laws.

Are you stating that our universe is not working itself into a state of decay? Stars will burn forever? The universe will stop expanding, contract, and perform another big bang with some form of reserved energy? This is not about whether or not I think the laws of thermodynamics are laws, as the scientific community at large still adheres to them as such.

It's cute how you think "space expanding trips over itself" but you can look up the papers. It's all backed by math and observations, the opposite of "tripping over itself". And yes, space is expanding that is what a space filled with energy does. Look up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

I suggest you read that wikipedia article and cite the evidences which propose the universe is expanding in a way that a "Vacuum" is expanding.

While I'm sure the individual galaxies are moving in a spread out pattern, this is different than stating the vacuum of space itself is expanding. Look into the prospect of "Vacuum energy", and how they account of this. I call much of the theories behind it to be "Vague Science" which jumps to a considerable height to reach conclusions it should not be able to reach.