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!
Good for you. You can find links on the internet. Now if you would be so kind as to show you have any familiarity AT ALL with actual Climate research, stop avoiding my question. You demonstrated an utter lack of familiarity with climate science. I pointed to posts you made which demonstrated this, such as your links to NASA and claims about their satellite date, except
" Link to an actual research paper you've read"
yes I did many of them infact
"Discuss, rather than link to, the scientific issues"
I did both
"Show, by using your words rather than massive amounts of quotes and linnks, that you have any idea what the state of research is in climate science"
I did both
Good for you. You can find links on the internet. Now if you would be so kind as to show you have any familiarity AT ALL with actual Climate research, stop avoiding my question. You demonstrated an utter lack of familiarity with climate science. I pointed to posts you made which demonstrated this, such as your links to NASA and claims about their satellite date, except
1) The people behind this satellite data are first and foremost 2 "climate deniers"
2) The satellite temperature sets aren't put together by NASA
3) I stated that the data sets for the last 10+ years don't show a warming trend, and you linked to NASA to support your claim that I was wrong, but NASA contradicts your view.
So again, if you claim to have ANY familiarity with the actual science behind your claims, the back up your claims here:
Point to any post where you explained the results of research studies you've read, and can cite, in your own words (not just a simple phrase/sentence, but a paragraph or several sentences) demonstrating you've read the published research, rather than whatever headlines, blogs, NOVA presentations intended for people who must depend on such sources because they aren't familiar with the science, or PR summaries. Because so far, all you've done is indicated that you have zero familiarity with the actual science and the extent of you knowledge of climate science is what you can copy off sites you get from google searches.
Make all the accusations you want if it make you feel supeior.
I think you might want try to discuss these matters with me with a more Civil tone. You have no idea what I understand about all this and what I don't.
I said it does not appear, you disagreed. I gave you temperature data, and you provided a lot more quote mining. Only when I finally provided something form a NASA webpage (the same site you kept linking to) did we settle that, in fact, you were wrong. Now, as the lack of a warming trend has been one of the most hotly discussed issues in both the public and academic arenas, if you were familiar with the science, it's hard to understand how you didn't know this."but the warming trend does not appear after ~1998 in our data sets"
Yes it does.
I will read this and just form the start the writer is an economist, it looks like, but willll read the whole report.
I would say most people who watch Nova are familar with science and watch it for the new science on specific topics.
people can watch Nova who are familar with the sciences and many do, as well as Nova presents things you can't get from individual reaserch papers. Nor was this a research papers verses Nova to begin with, the actual scientists are on the show explaning their work in person and there is more you can learn from them, as well as actual satellite images and more.
Painted wolf is (I believe) a researcher and knows more about paleobotony and plant life (and I'm certain a good many other topics as well) than I.Just a couple points...
NOVA and crew are great programs, but yes, they are heavily simplified. They are good overviews on subjects but nothing as detailed as a scientific paper.
Yes, they show you scientists doing science stuff, but it's only a cursory view. They can't go into the level of detail of the methods section, which is intended to be detailed enough that others can repeat the experiment the same way.
You have never learned anything from a science documentary?
Or frontline on some of the politics involved in the whole mess. Your also not the only one on the thread here.
Well considering I wasn't talking about the science, nor was that the point of watching the video, then no it wasn't hypocritical. The point of the documentary was see the people and their experience with their conditions. The material we read in class (in papers, our textbook, etc.) was much, much more thorough and technical when it came to the science. There was nothing about the science of memory we learned in the video.Funny on another thread you posted you
" I remember watching a documentary with Clive Wearing way back in Learning and Memory (an undergraduate class)."
So you post documentaries that matter and you learn something about it? Is that hypocritical, when you didn't post the actual research paper?
As for Nasa and satellite data, what does the Goddard Earth Sciences Data and information services center do?
Or the GDAAC do?
Of course they aren't. I never said they were.There not the only one's interpreting the satellite data.
Neither works for NASA. They work for UAH. And they get the data from the NOAA, which uses NASA satellites.where do they get the data from, especially since one works for Nasa and one use too?
What other satellite data sets are you referring to? Because RSS uses the raw NOAA/Satellite data as well. They just aren't the official source for the NOAA's data sets.Nasa interprets data from their satellites for NOAA and the department of defence. Are they the only one's, no. Other agencies have satellites and do research.
GISS doesn't put together the satellite data together, and neither does the MET office's Hadley Centre. UAH is the official contracted source, but has RSS also put together an independent data set. Again, they use the same satellites.the four temperature series that are advanced from:
GISS – Goddard Institute for Space Studies and home of James Hansen,
Hadley Centre – British Meteorological Office research centre
UAH – The University of Alabama, Huntsville, home of Roy Spencer with his colleagues including John Christy of NASA
RSS – Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, California, a company supported by NASA for the analysis of satellite data.
It absolutely does. First, with the actual temperature data sets (surface, lower air, and satellite). Second, when they present Hanson's theory (shared by others) as to why the trend isn't there. But that doesn't mean it isn't. And I never said it wasn't complicated. This whole time that's what I've been saying about all of it: the trends, the data, the climate, and everything else. It's very, very, complicated." I stated that the data sets for the last 10+ years don't show a warming trend, and you linked to NASA to support your claim that I was wrong, but NASA contradicts your view.
"NASA contradicts your view"
No it doesn't. Its just more complicated then your suggesting.
Now explain the influences of the oceans on that data?
Rather then cherry picked quotes such as the ones you offered in rebuttal, lets look at the actual data sets put out by the Hadley center, UAH's satellite data, and GISS:Let me state what your saying here again.
"I stated that the data sets for the last 10+ years don't show a warming trend"
Because you don't seem to understand what your talking about.
You see, here's the problem with quote mining statements rather than data or research. Let's look at a table meant to show how warm the past 10+ years have been:"As the British Met Office noted this week, in a reply to a misleading claim that the warming had stopped: what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850.
I didn't ignore it. I'd already read it. I've been reading these back and forth's for years. The point I was trying to make is that there is research which continues to explain that some, most, or all of the warming is natural (and that the temperature records are higher than the actual temperatures because the stastical procedures and corrections systematically increase the AGW period up). And other research continually finds the opposite. I posted links to actual full research papers for you to read. I don't recall you doing the same. But it doesn't matter. Would you like me to post a good many more papers which indicate one or more of the following:Then you posted one scientific paper trying to blame it on the solar irradiance, and I posted the rebuttle to that paper you ignored and then a new study from Nasa on the sun influence, you also downplayed.
It's not a matter of what they were "meant" to do! The point is that, like mammals, they could not flourish under the earlier Mesozoic climate and high carbon levels. It appears that the climate cooled quite dramatically in the Cretaceous, and flowering plants of all sorts were able to flourish and overtake the ferns and conifers that were predominant in a hotter world (I never said there weren't circumstances throwing the climate out of balance -- the question is whether the total biosphere tries to respond to outside pressures and return climate to something more suitable for the majority). There are many other negative sequestration methods at work in the natural carbon cycle, and I'm not saying that angiosperms came along to save the world. But, the general, long term trend has been to reduce CO2 levels as the Sun has increased its output over time. During the last 20 million years, I understand that there have been several times when CO2 levels fell below 200 ppm., possibly as low as 180....somewhat close to what I am told is the minimum carbon level to maintain present levels of photosynthesis -- 150 ppm. The increased frequency of ice ages might raise the question of why this would be desired, but aside from our own particular wants and needs, there is a strong argument that the modern ice ages have been more ideally suited for life than the interglacial periods.No... it had to do with changes in seed production by plants.
The global thermal maximum was still tens of millions of years away, so if angiosperms were meant to reduce the impact of a warming sun they failed miserably.
wa:do
I can agree with most of what you say, but if we ever get beyond stepwise changes and do something to halt the path to destruction, we will need everything on the table, up for evaluation. And my discomfort with green capitalists, is that they keep trying to block out that message and insist (like Bill Clinton most recently) that capitalism can save the environment. Until proven otherwise, I maintain that our very economic system is pushing us towards destruction.That's fine... but it won't solve our problems. Again, stepwise change is better than no change. And there isn't going to be a single solution that fits the needs of every nation, at least not yet... even though we have a common goal.
You can't simply tell people they are doing things wrong and expect them to change... even if you think you have the perfect solution.
The truth is climate change is going to happen no matter what we do... what we are changing is the speed of the process and the severity of the impact on global ecosystems.
wa:do
I haven't been involved in this fight, but you haven't dealt with the new ocean temp. measuring charts that are showing clear evidence of warming in the oceans....not to mention all the melting sea ice in the Arctic, which delayed the temperature rise at first.Good for you. You can find links on the internet. Now if you would be so kind as to show you have any familiarity AT ALL with actual Climate research, stop avoiding my question. You demonstrated an utter lack of familiarity with climate science. I pointed to posts you made which demonstrated this, such as your links to NASA and claims about their satellite date, except
1) The people behind this satellite data are first and foremost 2 "climate deniers"
2) The satellite temperature sets aren't put together by NASA
3) I stated that the data sets for the last 10+ years don't show a warming trend, and you linked to NASA to support your claim that I was wrong, but NASA contradicts your view.
Actually there's a lot more I haven't dealt with. But what's the point with adressing anything more with someone who doesn't want to discuss anything(just to be clear, I don't mean you)?I haven't been involved in this fight, but you haven't dealt with the new ocean temp. measuring charts that are showing clear evidence of warming in the oceans....not to mention all the melting sea ice in the Arctic, which delayed the temperature rise at first.
Actually the satellite data is the most accurate. They don't measure temperature directly, which allow non-local readings. In other words, a thermometer is sensitive to the temperature around it. However, MSUs measure temperature dependent elements (flux in the intensity of emitted radiation of oxygen), which means that they aren't sensitive to local changes but are capable of global readings in a way no other data set is. Also, AGW theory predicts that the greatest warming should occur in the lower troposphere, which only satellites and things like weather ballons are capable of meausring.It seems to me that the satellite data has been the least useful because it has been skewed by upper atmospheric readings which have become colder because of heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere.
And, I want an overall theory that makes sense, and can explain how rising CO2 and methane rates will NOT result in increasing temperatures.
The question is whether any of these other explanations are accurate.violate the laws of physics
Quite true. But there isn't a one-to-one correspondence between the amount of CO2 we emit and the amount in the atmosphere. At times when CO2 emissions have increased, the content hasn't. We don't fully understand the CO2 cycle, from absorbtion to it's role in temperature.there would still be the problems of rising ocean acidification and disruptions in the ocean thermohaline system.
Again, though, it is very important to understand that none of the models predict this increase because of the GHG role of CO2. That's rather small. The reason for those 4 to 6 degree increases are because of the feedback parameter.4 or 6 degree warmer world a reality in a shorter period of time.
Rather poetic though. That's good enough for me. Maybe better.Then I'll just prepare as best I can for the upcoming unfolding undoing. That didn't make sense.
Rather poetic though. That's good enough for me. Maybe better.
Actually mammals flourished just fine during the Mesozoic... in fact they had greater overall diversity before the end of Cretaceous than after. Some even hunted small dinosaurs.It's not a matter of what they were "meant" to do! The point is that, like mammals, they could not flourish under the earlier Mesozoic climate and high carbon levels.
Again, the majority of species were thriving... there hadn't been as much diversity among living things since the great Permian die off.It appears that the climate cooled quite dramatically in the Cretaceous, and flowering plants of all sorts were able to flourish and overtake the ferns and conifers that were predominant in a hotter world (I never said there weren't circumstances throwing the climate out of balance -- the question is whether the total biosphere tries to respond to outside pressures and return climate to something more suitable for the majority).
Doubtful... there have been plenty of glacial periods before those during the reign of mammals.There are many other negative sequestration methods at work in the natural carbon cycle, and I'm not saying that angiosperms came along to save the world. But, the general, long term trend has been to reduce CO2 levels as the Sun has increased its output over time. During the last 20 million years, I understand that there have been several times when CO2 levels fell below 200 ppm., possibly as low as 180....somewhat close to what I am told is the minimum carbon level to maintain present levels of photosynthesis -- 150 ppm. The increased frequency of ice ages might raise the question of why this would be desired, but aside from our own particular wants and needs, there is a strong argument that the modern ice ages have been more ideally suited for life than the interglacial periods.
Warmer surface waters are also needed to drive the global oceanic currents. The fact that the poles get 24 hour sunlight makes them green with algae and plankton, not the cold.First, warmer ocean waters on the surface block the upwelling of nutrients from deeper ocean layers, reduce oxygen absorption, and lead to clear blue oceans that are the water equivalents of deserts on land. While the cold Arctic and Antarctic waters are green with algae and plankton, and support much greater densities of marine life. Even on land, the creeping glaciers of the last ice age, may have taken out most of Canada and Northern Europe, but at the same time the drop in sea levels left many shallow shelfs and banks exposed as land surface...so I would be interested if some geologist has tried to make an assessment of just how much total land area the Earth had during the last ice age.
I've spent a lot of time on proxy records used in reconstructions of the temperature for the past several thousand years, but far less on those which reconstruct temperatures for the past tens of millions of years (or more). Could you recommend any sources? ThanksAgain, the warmest period in Earths history was in the Eocene
There are quite a few proxies from Foram ranges, the formation of calcium carbonate shells in marine invertebrates, the spread of tropical plants into northern lattitudes and stable isotope ratios.I've spent a lot of time on proxy records used in reconstructions of the temperature for the past several thousand years, but far less on those which reconstruct temperatures for the past tens of millions of years (or more). Could you recommend any sources? Thanks
Thanks. Also, I'm not limited to google scholar. I have access to most of the academic databases (science direct, academic search premier, academic files, jstor, etc.). I'll check out the links. I appreciate the help.There are quite a few proxies from Foram ranges, the formation of calcium carbonate shells in marine invertebrates, the spread of tropical plants into northern lattitudes and stable isotope ratios.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7093/full/nature04668.html
The Paleocene-Eocene benthic foraminiferal extinction and stable isotope anomalies
http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/people/faculty/personalpages/tbralower/Bralower2002.pdf
High-resolution records of the late Paleocene thermal maximum and circum-Caribbean volcanism: Is there a causal link?
Here is a fun proxy... the number of teeth on a deciduous trees leaves is a very good indication of temperature.
Dana Royer
These should be a good start. There is a lot of research into this subject.
If you want more you can find hundreds of papers on the subject by using Google Scholar... I would suggest searching for something like "PETM" (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum). You can also find similar work done on other time periods to determine the temperature.
wa:do
cool, similar searches at those will bring up even more. One nice thing about scholar though is that it also pulls links to abstracts from jstor and the like. Obviously having access to jstor means you will then get the full paper.Thanks. Also, I'm not limited to google scholar. I have access to most of the academic databases (science direct, academic search premier, academic files, jstor, etc.). I'll check out the links. I appreciate the help.
I do the same. For one thing, The more papers I find available in one database thanks to a scholar search, the more I know that's a good one to search.I tend to use scholar as a grand sweep and then do refined searches through jstor and others.
I haven't been involved in this fight, but you haven't dealt with the new ocean temp. measuring charts that are showing clear evidence of warming in the oceans....not to mention all the melting sea ice in the Arctic, which delayed the temperature rise at first.
It seems to me that the satellite data has been the least useful because it has been skewed by upper atmospheric readings which have become colder because of heat being trapped in the lower atmosphere.
And, I want an overall theory that makes sense, and can explain how rising CO2 and methane rates will NOT result in increasing temperatures. What some of the deniers hypothesize would violate the laws of physics. And, even if there was no warming, which I don't think is plausible with all of the circumstantial evidence we are being bombarded with now, there would still be the problems of rising ocean acidification and disruptions in the ocean thermohaline system. The denier or skeptic position that advocates on behalf of fossil fuels would still be illogical.
For what it's worth, I appreciated those National Geographic power point demos and videos, because the present suicidal strategy of going after the most carbon-intensive fuels will make those dire future scenarios of a 4 or 6 degree warmer world a reality in a shorter period of time.