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!
That's precisely my point. A tendency of incline. Except over the past 10+ years, our observational record don't show this. There is NOT significant average increase. So you can go on and one quote mining from this or that sorce about how hot 2011 was (despite an utter lack of familiarity with the science involved in constructing these data sets), but it will never make it a trend. And we can see from the satellite data, and even HadCRU, that there is no trend. That's why studies like Hansen (2010) exist. To explain why there is warming but it's obscured.
What was the scientific consensus on phsyics before quantum physics fundamentally altered what is now referred to as classical mechanics? What was the "consensus" on eugenics? Science isn't about consensus, and most of it's history has involved radical shifts in consensus views (not always based on evidence either).
The scientific community has reached a consensus on other things which were completely wrong as well. They've also switched from one to another without evidence. The truth is the "scientific community" continues to conduct research which shows results which conflict with mainstream AGW theory. As you don't read the research, because running to google to find whatever you can to support the views you hold is so much more convenient, you wouldn't know.
No, it isn't. I first noticed this thread because of a post about a nobel-prize winning physicist resigning from an the group he had belonged to because the upper echelons had made such a statement. The NAS doesn't need the consent of even most of it's members to release such statements.
You have no clue if it's the "overwhelming majority." Even a basic understanding of social & behavioral methodology behind survey research (of the type conducted to determine who supports mainstream AGW) would lead an unbiased individual to conclude that what is out there is shoddily done. It's probably not only the majority view, but a large majority. However, again this doesn't matter. It doesn't even matter if the theory is largely right. What matters is the accuracy of our understanding of the climate system, because only that will allow us to know where to start. But as our models have consistently FAILED, and there continues to be published, peer-reviewed research pointing to flaws in virtually every aspect of mainstream AGW theory, we clearly don't have this understanding.
Name one which rejected classical mechanics prior to quantum physics. Name one which accepted the biomedical model of mental health prior to the publication of the DSM-III (which had little to no actual scientific research behind it). Tell me how many organizations and scientists publicly supported eugenics before the horrors of the holocaust. Then explain to me why it matters what "organizations" publicly claim.
Thanks. It just goes to show how fast the flow of information moves these days! I saw that Reuters story after I posted comments yesterday. I guess it's only common sense that ocean acidification would be proceeding at a faster rate than past events, like the PETM, considering that a paleoclimate study of the increase in atmospheric CO2 during the PETM showed that the rate of increase in atmospheric carbon is at least five times faster in the modern era, depending on whether we are focusing our attention on CO2 or methane increase as the source to base possible modelling scenarios for explaining the data:
Yes, the models should be able to explain the data....I hear that's the whole point to developing a scientific hypothesis into a theory; but that shows me that the few climate scientists who have been arguing for low atmospheric sensitivity to greenhouse gas levels, are wrong every step of the way. Each time they come up with an idea to try to prove no relation between global average temperatures and carbon dioxide levels, new results shoot them down. But instead of abandoning the concept entirely, they keep coming up with new alternatives to base their claims on. It's more like they have the theory, and they are just going to keep searching for data to fit their pre-existing beliefs.
But, even if the most often applied AGW theory was wrong, that would be an argument for developing a better theory, rather than claiming that there is no warming, or that the atmosphere has low sensitivity to CO2....something that hasn't been the case in the past, and would violate basic laws of physics, since carbon dioxide's capacity to absorb infrared radiation was known at least as far back as WWII -- when aeronautics engineers were trying to design supersonic aircraft. The so-called global warming skeptics don't have alternatives to explain: the accelerated melt of Arctic sea ice and melting permafrost; the increase in extreme weather events around the world; rising sea levels....all being the most obvious signs that the planet is changing in ways it never has before. Like I posted previously, it's pretty hard to argue that the Arctic isn't getting hotter, when shipping companies are sending exploratory vessels to plan out new Arctic shipping routes. There's debatable subjects, like how fast mountain glaciers are melting, or whether the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is going to collapse; but there are features of our changing world that are beyond argument now, and evidence that we have entered a new era: The Anthropocene.
So far, I haven't read anything from climate change skeptics on economics or politics that goes beyond the libertarian...every man for himself approach. I'm not even satisfied that "green capitalists" are taking an honest approach to environmental problems, let alone those who argue for just letting the market decide. In this day and age, when a small number of multinational corporations have more effective power than national governments, the "market" will decide to keep exploiting coal, gas and oil until they run out...or civilization collapses -- because fossil fuels are still provide the largest return on investment, and make the oil companies the most profitable corporations in the world....and certainly profitable enough to finance an elaborate and extensive array of media, policy-makers, university research, and public education, to deny evidence of climate change...or at least leave the public unsure if it is really happening. We went through this process before on a smaller scale with the campaigns against the theory of evolution, and the dangers of 2nd hand cigarette smoke; but this disinformation campaign is of a much greater scale than the previous strategies created by the Marshall Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Heritage Foundation.
Recently, the best quick source was a blog post written by Chris Mooney in Discover: Liberals, Conservatives, and Science | The Intersection | Discover Magazine which includes links to recent psychological research looking for different approaches to understanding between self-identified liberals and conservatives. An exhaustive analysis can be found in a book that is still posted free online in pdf by Robert Altemeyer: The Authoritarians which is primarily focused on the followers in authoritarian movements. Altemeyer contends that, although conservative and liberal tendencies are on a sliding scale that can vary with external events...like wars, terrorist attacks etc., or personal events in our lives....we are least authoritarian in our teenage years when we are trying to establish our own social identities, and become more conservative in our thinking when we start families and have young children -- but, Altemeyer finds that the authoritarian follower describes much, if not most of the approaches taken by the typical conservative: a greater need for order and structure in life than for freedom, greater likelihood to accept the teachings of accepted authorities etc.. When Altemeyer updated his book to include what was happening in the 2008 Presidential Election, his level of optimism increased slightly, but he still sees the future trends towards greater uncertainty and insecurity as increasing conservatism in America, and the continued decline of liberal ways of thinking.
Isn't there a famous quote among the scientific community that 'science progresses when department heads retire or die of old age?'
When the empirical data discoveries new reasons to be alarmed about increasing ocean acidification -- like the changes to water densities that foul up fish sonar, it's time to consider there is enough evidence to make it as big an issue as global warming on land....and especially after that latest report finding that acidification is also show that the rate of change to ph is greater than during the PETM.
Animal and plant species come and go, but over the last 10 years there has been one study after another finding an alarming increase in the rates of extinction and biodiversity loss among mammals, reptiles, amphibians and even insects. This is the strongest reason to take a gaia approach to how the biosphere operates. Up till now, even those who call themselves environmentalists, have payed little attention to the increasing amount of land taken for agriculture...especially monocropping. We may already be using too much land to maintain the natural balance.
This statement has it exactly backwards. It is because we have been acting with the assumption of being separate and apart from nature, that we have carried on with such disregard for the consequences of burning out forests, dumping toxic wastes, fouling the air, and driving many species into extinction. It wasn't until a little more than a century ago, with the foul air and water in the industrial cities of England, that anyone thought of consequences of this kind of economic activity. In the East, where they held on to a concept of interconnectedness (at least in theory), the change from static, unchanging societies in Japan, China and India, also included a huge shift in cultural values imported from the WEst, that they may or may not want to acknowledge. There certainly are advantages to many new developments (at least for some of the population), but they are reaping the environmental whirlwind right now in China and India, with rapid losses of topsoil and declines in available fresh water. America had a lot of open land and available resources to "grow" the economy. Overcrowded nations that are already
There may be questions regarding what to protect, and what not to waste attention on, but even those species selected for special consideration serve their roles in nature. It's typical of the outsider approach to try to make a reductionist evaluation of what is, and what is not valuable in nature.
Most of the people who would be horrified by a man deliberately killing the baby elephant, would also feel the same about the lion. But, the difference is that the lion has no choice about its actions, where as the human does. The lion has to kill or die of starvation, whereas we have the luxury of killing for sport. For that matter, there is not even an ethical argument for eating meat or dairy consumption because the scale of animal suffering in factory farming goes lightyears beyond what the average hunter does in the woods. The hunter doesn't breed animals in ways that increases there suffering (like broiler and laying hens for example) just to make meat products at a lower cost. There are big reasons why a person can be prosecuted for just bringing a camera into one of these big meat-processing operations...and it boils down to not letting the consumer see how the sausage is made!
There are two alternative approaches to understanding ecosystems and the natural world: a reductionist system of components, or a complex interwoven system where changes to one subsystem can cause unforseen changes to other natural systems. My criticism of the way things are done now, go beyond energy choices and carbon emissions, to questioning the consequences of using half of the Earth's land surface for agriculture, and having 7 billion people in the world aspiring to a Western level of consumption. Future survival of the human race is going to require a whole new way of thinking about many things, and a big part of the way they are handled today is that they are compartmentalized into separate issue silos, as if economic problems have nothing to do with environment or availability of natural resources. These problems cannot be treated separately.
This is a very naive outlook. Just because a Jenga tower is still standing, doesn't mean it won't topple over any minute. Especially, when we have seen several smaller towers fall already.
This is utterly false.
Humans do do "something" to it... but the idea that ecologists/environmentalists say we aren't part of it is totally false and misleading.
No, it's a realization that we need to control our actions because we are the species with the greatest capacity to alter the environment and to drive species to extinction. It's also the realization that our survival depends on these environments in several ways from their roles in biofiltration to "banking" natural resources to the simple pleasure of visiting them.
Nature documentary is an extremely myopic source to base your viewpoint. The vast majority of environmentalism (and a significant chunk of ecology research) focuses on how humans interact with the environment and how we can balance our needs with the needs of other species.
No, it's because they are anthropogenic... they wouldn't be entering the atmosphere without our direct action.
Thanks for keeping this thread alive btw
. I'm a little disheartened about how little interest there is on climate change and environment in general, even though every other issue that gets tossed around on these forums, like the wars, threats of wars, economic problems, food shortages, religious strife etc. can be linked to the growing climate crisis around the world.
Thanks for keeping this thread alive btw
I'll make sure I have something to post tomorrow.
It would be interesting to know what the long term impact of this algae bloom would be. Will it just die back to normal levels after a few days or weeks?
A lot of it has to do with the La Nina cycle we are currently in.
Wow, the good news just keeps on coming! It seems like it was just a few years ago, that the Arctic sea ice melting was something believed to be far away in the future...or at least for people living in the next century. 1.6 degrees warming is likely already on its way now....the ocean data indicates that there is at least 1 degree waiting to hit us already.
