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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Very impressive graph. But it doesn't change anything that I said. That spike you see? That's a shift in total atmospheric carbon from almost three hundredths of 1% to almost four hundredths of 1%.
Go back to your temperature graphs. Look at the AGW period (~1970 onwards). Then imagine it dropping 60%.
I've been reading Tom Wigley and Ben Santer's work for years. For every publication that comes out saying X, another researcher will find Y. And this is particularly true if the research doesn't support the mainstream paradigm. Yet despite the difficulty involved in publishing non-AGW views in mainstream journals, it keeps happening. Yes, the article might have to remove this or that claim from the original because it is too problematic for AGW theory. Yes, there is always a response from the mainstream view. But this research keeps coming out, one way or another. Why? Because the climate is an incredibly complex system, the field involves a wide variety of specialties, and we don't know as much as we think. Which is why Hansen is explaining the lack of a warming trend now, rather predicting it. Our models, which are the basis for our theory that CO2 emissions have already caused warming and if left unchecked will result in possible catastrophe and definite problems, couldn't account for what's happening NOW. Right now. Not 2100. NOW.
The authors look at the AGW period and the melting in Antarctica in a wider context. According to their findings, the melting which has occured during this period is consistend with a much longer trend of natural variability in Antarctic ice mass. This could be because of particular natural cycles.
Wow, you'll believe anything won't you? Based on a blog, whose author has no obligation to check any of his facts, you determine that all of the research which finds AGW theory problematic is funded by big oil. I could have saved you the trouble. There are tons of blogs like this. Just like there are tons of blogs claiming that AGW is a massive environmentalist conspiracy backed by the left-wingers, from politicians to billioniare left-wing executives.
I posted peer-reviewed papers published in respected journals, and provided you with links to read them yourself. And you have the audacity to claim that I post "individual studies that may or may not mean something!!??" I tried to get you to look at the actual science. The research. Not some neat little PR bunk you got off of some website. The actual science. You don't read it, you marginalize, and then you link to a blog as if that says ANYTHING about it.
All research papers are "single papers." I've read hundreds and hundreds over many years. You haven't read anything. I could continue to link to study after study after study and they would always be "single research papers" and you could always find a scientists who disagrees or some blog who says the author is on "big oil's" payroll. And for every link you provide I can provide one that says NASA, the IPCC, the temperature record, etc., is all part of some vast environmentalist left-wing conspiracy.
It seems to you because you have shown an utter inability to demonstrate even the faintest familiarity with the actual published, reviewed science behind the issues. Instead you link to blogs and a whole lot of other junk. Whenever you get close to actual science, you don't understand it. Once again, your audacity here is simply incredible. All you have done is ripped whatever links you could from interenet searches. Not a single link to an actual article you have read. Not a single response you have written which would demonstrate even a passing familiarity with climate science. But I'm the one "not getting the big picture."
It would be nice if you had even the ability to READ THE GRAPHS. I posted a graph from HadCRU. You said it ended in 2000, presumably because that was the last number on the x-axis. But the chart didn't end there. You can't even read a graph accurately but you claim to understand the science?
No, it isn't. It's that
What you haven't read Herman Hesse or Thoreau?
I think I went over this before, but I want to emphasize after reading many pages of all sorts of nuanced explanations and obfuscations of climate data which somehow inevitably lead to the conclusion of "we don't understand it so do nothing" that the sensible conclusion about ecological systems we are trying to get an understanding of, is to use care and caution before allowing unrestricted exploitation and modification of the environment. And this is what makes me most sick of scientists like those mentioned previously, who don't actually dispute the major findings of the majority of climate researchers, but they end with the conclusion of do nothing, so give the green light to rampant oil and coal development. I think these guys are more equivalent to lawyers than scientists!
No, the Sun, meteors/asteroids, plate tectonics and volcanism, create the pressures that unbalance the biosphere which is trying to optimize conditions for life. As mentioned previously, the Sun is more than 30% hotter than it was 4 billion years ago, and the living mass on Earth has gone from an early period of promoting the content of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, to removing methane and lowering CO2 (that's where the introduction of oxygen fits in)and increasing carbon sequestration to try to keep CO2 levels below 300 ppm. -- as noted in a recent new method of paleoclimate measurement; and it's been the anomalous periods when outside forcings pushed up greenhouse gas levels that we had recent extinctions. At present solar radiation levels, life on Earth cannot thrive at Co2 levels above 300. An attitude that it's all random and a matter of fate that things go out of control and lead to extinctions is a disturbing lack of interest in understanding why past changes happened and what effects human civilization have on climate during the present.
Okay, I had a look at them -- the Murphy report doesn't dispute the general consensus on AGW, but contends that temperatures aren't rising as fast as expected because particulate pollution is blocking solar radiation and reflecting it back into space. This sounds like the most common solution advocated for geoengineering is happening naturally, and like I said before -- even if true, and if geo is feasible to solve the AGW problem, what about ocean acidification from all of the carbon absorbed into the world's oceans. This paper doesn't even mention that issue; that's the one I want to hear some so called AGW skeptic deal with.
Frontline, yes. They are both media outlets. Foxnews has (I believe) a marked, obvious, conservative bias. I have to admit that I don't know this from personal experience, as I've never watched it. But I have read (or skimmed) some of the books from people who became famous because of it. They are clearly conservative/right-wing. Nova is less akin, but it's still media.
Well, that's as good as any ideas I've seen so far! It might become part of the next geoengineering scheme.
That's certainly true.
They do.
Few come to this conclusion.
I wasn't trying to malign him. I used the words you used to describe a nobel-winning physicist who weighed in on climate science. You accused him of talking about something which had nothing to so with his expertise and of being too old. Both of these descriptions apply (even more so) to Lovelock.
In what way? You mean fix it, or do you mean you want to see how a "deniers" deal with it in their research? Once again, the issue is more than a little complex. Doney et al.'s 2009 paper, for example published in Annual Review of Marine Science provides and interesting example, primarily because the don't offer a "denier" view. Yet part of what they conclude seems to. Here's their conclusion. I've highlighted some important points.
It's true I don't watch any of them. I don't remember any research paper I've read which cites Nova or Frontline. Why? They don't produce scientific research, they summarize it and popularize it for people who don't read the research. As I read the research, why would I bother to watch/read a dumbed down version?
