Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
don't forget to use logic guys in climate change. it aint rocket science here.
Causes:
sun: definitely can but we haven't been watching long enough.
geologic: We are not seeing that much activity and there are underwater events that we do not know about. so maybe. But we can't do a thing about them. Well, "STOP FRACKING".
Biosphere: How does life effect the atmosphere. That's simple, many ways. What life form is probably changing it the most. Simple again. Humans. We are in a 6th mass extinction event right now.Human activity is one the few things we can control. It might not even matter, but I think it is prudent to at least try.
Something else: An asteroid or something weird. Well, if asteroid hits it don't matter anyway. And "something" like whatever, a Gamma ray, it still won't matter. So again it gets back to doing what we can.
End Game:
Nobody knows if we will turn into Venus or snowball earth. What is clear is that if the ocean currents change or stop our weather changes big time. But it all won't matter. When the water rises and the landfills go under the earth goes septic for humans life.
rush is a dope and an embarrassment to us capitalist. In fact he gives me capitalist migraines.
I would agree that the general public does not understand the scale and scope, but why should I think that climatologists do not understand it well enough to offer significant scientific conclusions? To me it looks like this: In one corner of the boxing ring, we have hundreds or thousands of scientists who devote their professional careers to studying issues of scale and scope. They say that human activity could conceivably have this impact, and that there is a high probability that we are having this impact. In the other corner of the ring, we have a guy on the internet claiming that scientists don't understand scale and scope. The scientists publish hundreds of articles in peer-reviewed professional literature in which they summarize years of data collection and analysis. The guy on the internet simply makes assertions, saying "they don't understand the scale or the scope." I have to ask myself: Why does the guy on the internet think that scientists don't grasp issues of scale? What evidence has he offered to convince me that climatologists are inept on this matter? None. Based on my experience reading other guys on the internet, I suspect that if he does try to offer evidence or arguments, most of it eventually link back to other guys on the internet, who base their arguments mostly on other guys on the internet, or perhaps on Fox News commentators. I'm not super-impressed with this line of argumentation.This makes me think that you have virtually no understanding of complex dynamic systems. The interconnected elements of a complex system don't have to "agree" on anything in order to manifest vast and powerful patterns of activity. A thousand dogs prancing across a bridge don't have to agree on anything in order to collapse the bridge.
The Dunning-Kruger effect seems to be rampant among climate science rejectors. I can't tell you how many internet 'experts' I've come across who seriously believe that with their grade-school science and excel spreadsheets they know far more than all the scientists from all the different fields of science and over 100 years of climate science. The only good thing about them from a personal point of view is I've learned a hell of lot more about the basics of climate science by reading and researching to show their 'arguments' are complete ignorant arrogant nonsense. I know enough to respect those who make it their life's work to study all the different earth sciences so they can understand the impact of human activities on our planet.
There seems to me to be several different flavors of those who reject climate science. Those whose religious beliefs won't allow them to conceive of humans affecting the God-given climate and those with anti-government conservative free-market/tea-partier political ideology (often both).
Sorry Mystic, this reads like an anti-science conspiracy blog or the tabloid press where you see posts that all the scientists are corrupt and are faking data and are getting rich on the gubmint gravy train and don't know nuffing, and all the models suck. This is just not reality.
I do not want to get into a battle over science findings but the Climate Models simply do NOT have all the variables nor the correct information about the ones they do have. Just one recent study shows our previous understanding of how the plants in different areas interact with the CO2 in the air and affect the climate was not correct. Since the climate simulations should have been incorporating our previous understanding in to the simulations by default ALL of them are now made incorrect by this new information. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0521144102.htm
Excerpt from the article"
"In savannahs it is different. As productivity increases there is room to fit in more trees whose growing biomass provides a sink, or store, for carbon sequestered from the atmosphere. In addition, savannahs spring to life in wetter years, causing large fluctuations in carbon dioxide uptake between wet and dry years. Large enough, Ahlström and colleagues show, to control the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
"There has been an increase in the uptake of carbon dioxide over time, and land ecosystems have together absorbed almost one third of all carbon dioxide emissions from human activity since the 1960s. What is perhaps even more surprising is that this trend is also dominated by the semi-arid lands," Anders Ahlström says.'
I have enough experience with smulations and the effects of incorrect information about the variables to know the outputs cannot be trusted if the relationships among the variables are not correct.
I do not want to get into a battle over science findings but the Climate Models simply do NOT have all the variables nor the correct information about the ones they do have. Just one recent study shows our previous understanding of how the plants in different areas interact with the CO2 in the air and affect the climate was not correct. Since the climate simulations should have been incorporating our previous understanding in to the simulations by default ALL of them are now made incorrect by this new information. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0521144102.htm
Excerpt from the article"
"In savannahs it is different. As productivity increases there is room to fit in more trees whose growing biomass provides a sink, or store, for carbon sequestered from the atmosphere. In addition, savannahs spring to life in wetter years, causing large fluctuations in carbon dioxide uptake between wet and dry years. Large enough, Ahlström and colleagues show, to control the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
"There has been an increase in the uptake of carbon dioxide over time, and land ecosystems have together absorbed almost one third of all carbon dioxide emissions from human activity since the 1960s. What is perhaps even more surprising is that this trend is also dominated by the semi-arid lands," Anders Ahlström says.'
I have enough experience with smulations and the effects of incorrect information about the variables to know the outputs cannot be trusted if the relationships among the variables are not correct.
There will always be uncertainties and minor refinements. This type of finding does not significantly change anything. The knowledge will add to the existing body of knowledge - which is already considerable. Scientists already knew that the amount of CO2 we have been pumping into the atmosphere was almost twice the amount of what has remained in the atmosphere and that the rest was being sequestered into the land, oceans and certain types of grasses/plants (C4 versus C3). Scientists already know a lot from past climates (which included all the variables except human contributions) about what happens when CO2 levels rise significantly in such a short time. We have far more detailed knowledge of the last 150 years and especially the last 50 years. The trend is more warming. All the evidence is continually reinforcing that.
There will always be uncertainties and minor refinements. This type of finding does not significantly change anything. The knowledge will add to the existing body of knowledge - which is already considerable. Scientists already knew that the amount of CO2 we have been pumping into the atmosphere was almost twice the amount of what has remained in the atmosphere and that the rest was being sequestered into the land, oceans and certain types of grasses/plants (C4 versus C3). Scientists already know a lot from past climates (which included all the variables except human contributions) about what happens when CO2 levels rise significantly in such a short time. We have far more detailed knowledge of the last 150 years and especially the last 50 years. The trend is more warming. All the evidence is continually reinforcing that.
The trend is warming since the last ice age . . . no one is disputing that. The issue is human contribution. Are we contributing, YES. The issue is the significance of our contribution relative to the scope and scale of the other forces. If anything we may be very slightly prolonging the inter-glacial period before the next Ice Age. Which would you prefer to deal with??
I believe God exists.
I do not believe in evolutionism.
I do believe mankind is ruining the planet, and
there are undeniable repurcussions on the climate.
And out of 40 responses thus far, I am alone.
Which is sad.
I believe God exists.
I do not believe in evolutionism.
I do believe mankind is ruining the planet, and
there are undeniable repurcussions on the climate.
And out of 40 responses thus far, I am alone.
Which is sad.
Yes, it is.
It means some of your fellow fundies are too cowardly to respond (among other things).
The trend is warming since the last ice age . . . no one is disputing that. The issue is human contribution. Are we contributing, YES. The issue is the significance of our contribution relative to the scope and scale of the other forces. If anything we may be very slightly prolonging the inter-glacial period before the next Ice Age. Which would you prefer to deal with??
The trend was already starting to cool since the peak of this current Holocene interglacial until the Industrial Age, then we changed the trend. There won't be another Ice Age with atmospheric CO2 levels this high and grower higher. The planet is already too warm for increased glaciation. Unless something unusual happens like a giant asteroid crashing into the earth tossing massive amounts of aerosols into the atmosphere blocking solar irradiation. Humans evolved while the earth went through Ice Ages. Human civilization and modern infrastructure has developed during this current Holocene interglacial. So much of our infrastructure is based around the coasts. Future generations are going to have to deal with very different world.
What 'other forces' are you referring to? Apart from the ones in my earlier post that I've already explained?
After all this time, only about a dozen theists have responded to the poll, and most of them accept both evolution and AGW. I'm sure there are lots more theists in the Religion & Spirituality forum who would add to the other categories, if they would vote in the poll. Perhaps they don't even see the poll because the title of the thread seems threatening, so they don't even open it? Just curious.
You bumped and got another non theist response and then I read you are after more theists. Oops...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
