-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Climate Change - Bad News
- Thread starter Knight of Albion
- Start date
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
Amen, sister! And I hear you on the Amish, though they get away with using a little more technology and modern conveniences in some communities than they let on.
We saw this with our own eyeballs when we visited Shipshewana, IN in July.
You've hit the nail on the head. We're all partially to blame for the deterioration of resources and climate change. And then, some of this can be blamed on natural processes as well.
We kind of null our complaining rights, when we continue to enjoy the very conveniences that contribute.
Knight of Albion
Well-Known Member
In the words of the song 'There may be trouble ahead...'
As has already been mentioned, people in the First World may be in broad agreement on the need to tackle climate change but few are ready to undertake the wholesale changes in diet and lifestyle that are required. They still want their burgers and their cars and their white goods and their luxury items.
Add to this that people in the emerging economies - China, India and to a lesser extent Vietnam - are enjoying the fruits of their new found prosperity and wanting to embrace the Western diet and lifestyle with associated material possessions.
Add to this a growing population in a finite world. 7.1 billion people at present. (51% under 30) Heading to 10 billion by 2050...
Even then by 2050 there will still be 3 billion people under 30....
Short of a Third World War, untreatable plague or global cataclysm, world population shows no prospect of decreasing or even stabilising.
All these people will require housing, services, living space and feeding, which will further impact on the natural world.
The future for many fauna and flora species looks dire.
And what will life be like for humans on Planet Earth 50 years from now????
As has already been mentioned, people in the First World may be in broad agreement on the need to tackle climate change but few are ready to undertake the wholesale changes in diet and lifestyle that are required. They still want their burgers and their cars and their white goods and their luxury items.
Add to this that people in the emerging economies - China, India and to a lesser extent Vietnam - are enjoying the fruits of their new found prosperity and wanting to embrace the Western diet and lifestyle with associated material possessions.
Add to this a growing population in a finite world. 7.1 billion people at present. (51% under 30) Heading to 10 billion by 2050...
Even then by 2050 there will still be 3 billion people under 30....
Short of a Third World War, untreatable plague or global cataclysm, world population shows no prospect of decreasing or even stabilising.
All these people will require housing, services, living space and feeding, which will further impact on the natural world.
The future for many fauna and flora species looks dire.
And what will life be like for humans on Planet Earth 50 years from now????
I just read something rather inspiring in one of my tree-hugger magazines.
Folks nowadays have a lack of imagination. In the span of a lifetime, we went from the first human flight to landing on the moon.
In the span of a lifetime, guys.
If we get serious about this issue, we can tackle it. No doubt. With imagination, inventive solutions, and big dreams.
Folks nowadays have a lack of imagination. In the span of a lifetime, we went from the first human flight to landing on the moon.
In the span of a lifetime, guys.
If we get serious about this issue, we can tackle it. No doubt. With imagination, inventive solutions, and big dreams.
Knight of Albion
Well-Known Member
They have other concerns. At the moment, the biggest is the fact that IPCC models have been wrong since 1998 and they have no explanation for the current 15 year trend:
The current IPCC report doesn't say much about this discrepancy, claiming that it is mainly "internal variability." What the **** is the point of climate models if they can't account for internal variability over 15 years, especially as the claim is that most of the warming since 1951 is due to humans? That 15 years is 1/4 the total period, and from 1951 to almost 1980 global temperatures were decreasing from the highs of the 1930s. That gives us a ~30 year increase in global temperatures attributed to humans, preceded by cooling and followed by a 15 year period that none of the models predicted, including all of those from the IPCCs 2007 report (AR4). The IPCC is once again caught with its pants down and scrambling to cover this up with promises for a more detailed report rather than the ad hoc attributions of model errors to "internal variability" caused by either aerosols or unexpected ocean heat retention despite the lack of any evidence for either. Currently, AR5 cites papers that don't even exist.
They've got enough on there hands to worry about thanks to the leaked AR5 without worrying about cows.
LOL pretty much.
I gotta say the Mennonite and Amish communities we've visited are super cool. (Off topic) people can live and live well without all that we find necessary with our technological gadgets.
We do what we can and do what we prefer to sacrifice, we still are on the grid, we still use the municipal water supply and indoor plumbing, we still drive a LOT to and from our work and business, and we still purchase packaged foods from time to time for the family.
It would have to take a major restructuring of our economic system, city infrastructure, and a cultural shift away from reality tv and twitter toward churning butter and splitting wood.
Except that I've never met anyone who recognizes the reality of climate change who thinks the sky is falling.
I once looked at a map of what the Earth would look like if all the ice caps melted.
I feel a bit sorry for Florida.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
the reality is that people dont spend money on the environment, they spend it on themselves.
So if you believe money will save the environment (if thats what you were implying) I think that is just wishful thinking.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
The global warming to date is due to a change in natural forcings, some major forcings include solar radiation, volcanic activity, changes in earth's orbital parameters, cloudiness/albedo, ocean and and atmospheric composition and feedback activity.
Humans who think other humans can determine the state of climate of planet earth are, imho, mistaken. That doesn't mean I don't want the very best climate appropriate for the thriving of mankind, it's just that mankind can't control the global climate and the alternation of ice ages and interglacial periods will continue into the future.
If some of those major forcings outside the control of man move in the direction of creating a warmer planet or a cooler planet, then it will be, a carbon tax under the pretext of CO2 being an atmospheric forcing that if regulated, could in turn regulate the world's climate is a scam, simple as that.
For those of you who are caught up in the hype of the global warming scare, I caution you to consider that actual reality exists outside of the intellectual campaign to keep you all frightened and prepared to pay for the fix. The beast is alive and well, Truman finally saw through it, so can you...
[youtube]UyhnI1QiGNw[/youtube]
Humans who think other humans can determine the state of climate of planet earth are, imho, mistaken. That doesn't mean I don't want the very best climate appropriate for the thriving of mankind, it's just that mankind can't control the global climate and the alternation of ice ages and interglacial periods will continue into the future.
If some of those major forcings outside the control of man move in the direction of creating a warmer planet or a cooler planet, then it will be, a carbon tax under the pretext of CO2 being an atmospheric forcing that if regulated, could in turn regulate the world's climate is a scam, simple as that.
For those of you who are caught up in the hype of the global warming scare, I caution you to consider that actual reality exists outside of the intellectual campaign to keep you all frightened and prepared to pay for the fix. The beast is alive and well, Truman finally saw through it, so can you...
[youtube]UyhnI1QiGNw[/youtube]
1) Feedback activity is the only reason we're worried about co2 and (to a lesser extent) other GHGs. No feedback, no worrisome anthropogenic global warming.
2) Cloudiness, volcanic activity, aerosol forcings, etc., are negative. The IPCC is suggesting that volcanic activity (among other things) is partially responsible for the 15 year "hiatus" (lack of warming) they couldn't predict.
3) Solar radiation isn't responsible. Solar magnetic flux is implicated and the current IPCC draft actually finally admits that Marsh, Svensmark, Kirby, CERN's Cloud guys, etc., might be correct.
4) The other thing that the IPCC claims is responsible for the current lack of warming is the ocean. The ocean retains vast amounts of heat and delays observed warming. Everybody knows this and nobody denies it.
5) The earth's orbital parameters?
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
The IPCC is 'suggesting' means just that, their climate models failed to predict the 16 / 17 year cessation of increase in warming and so they now blame natural cooling for the masking of the AGW. The science is not settled in the real world, the IPCC models are failing.
The missing heat is in the oceans, another attempt to keep the 'blame it in humans' campaign going as the pause in warming continues. It is supposed to hiding in hot spots in the oceans, but those hot spots are yet to be found in the real world, it's still just models.
The earths orbital parameters determine the cycles of alternating ice ages and interglacial global warming cycles, about which humans can't do anything to prevent. The average period of an ice age is 100,000 years and the interglacial is about 15,000 years. We are about 12,000 years into this interglacial when global warming is the norm, so the next ice age is due soon.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
Yeah you see that is what happens when old scientific models were not as accurate as we thought they were, we try to find out why and then develop more accurate models.
Their old model wasnt as accurate as they thought, so they developed a new one which they hope to be more accurate. The question is whether or not there is something incorrect with the current model - and more importantly the underlying theory that the model is envisioned to attempt to predict. The fact that their old model was wrong doesnt mean the underlying theory was, all it means is that their model was inaccurate.
Their old model wasnt as accurate as they thought, so they developed a new one which they hope to be more accurate. The question is whether or not there is something incorrect with the current model - and more importantly the underlying theory that the model is envisioned to attempt to predict. The fact that their old model was wrong doesnt mean the underlying theory was, all it means is that their model was inaccurate.
I have washed my hands of the IPCC. They have failed to do their job and have undermined their own goals permanently and disastrously. I couldn't care less what they are suggesting is to blame for their pathetic inaccuracies which they couldn't rectified had they cared about actually representing climate science rather than politics. What does matter is that you are ascribing to the observed warming things that are known to cause cooling. Oceans absorb heat. Clouds & volcanos block absorb and reflect back outwardly heat from the sun. One alternative explanation for a certain amount of observed warming is the solar magnetic flux allowing in galactic cosmic rays which increases cloud coverage via cloud seeding. The flux provides a mechanism whereby clouds increase or decrease during observed warmings and coolings via a decrease or increase in cloud coverage (respectively).
The temperature peaked in 1998. 16 years ago there was an increase in temperature.
It doesn't, although it is a contributor.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
Yes, but the new models are yet to taste the test of time and they too may be shown to be wrong. Time will tell!
As the sensitivity of CO2 forcing in the models is lowered to better match the real data, the lowered increase in warming may mean that mitigation may not be the priority it was with the higher warming prediction of earlier failing models.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
No, though I may have not conveyed it well, I meant that the forcings I listed were the major ones determining the state of climate, not a breakdown of what each contributed. That the world had increased in average temperature by 0.7 C over the last 150 odd years is just the present state of play, the details of the positive and negative forcings wasn't addressed.
Last edited:
Feedback is not a forcing.