Egypt was a sand lot before 8500BP, at which point there was a sudden onset of humid conditions which lasted for 3000 years until 5500BP, at which point residents of the gamey Sahara had to withdraw to the Nile valley, an ecological exodus to a land of milk and honey which the Bible writer Moses sublimates. The Sahara is right under the latitude of the high pressure component of the Hadley cell, just like the Gobi, Sonoran and Arabian deserts. Wet conditions were an exception. Ah, the Argumentum ad Crichtum. Michael Crichton was a physician and has been an entertainer. To the best of my knowledge, he has never been a meteorologist or a climatologist. While chaos theory was a useful plot driver in Jurassic Park; he redeploys it in State of Fear to obfuscate and exonerate. If he applied it in the same manner as he did in Jurassic Park, chaos theory would address unforeseen or chance runaway effects in climate change. (I also don't throw Al Gore any farther, as he carries the aroma of sensationalism.)
ANOTHER 200 Scientists Document Global Climate Change - Yo Deniers!
by Seeker4 68 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Bryan
Egypt was a sand lot before 8500BP
Environmental changes
Based on studies by glaciologistLonnie Thompson (professor at Ohio State University and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center) [1] a number of indicators shows there was a global change in climate 5,200 years ago:
- The climate was altered suddenly with severe impacts.
- Plants buried in the Quelccaya Ice Cap in the Peruvian Andes demonstrate the climate had shifted suddenly and severely to capture the plants and preserve them until now.
- A man trapped in an Alpine glacier (“Oetzi”) is frozen until his discovery in 1991.
- Tree rings from Ireland and England show this was their driest period.
- Ice core records showing the ratio of two oxygen isotopes retrieved from the ice fields atop Africa’s Mount Kilimanjaro, a proxy for atmospheric temperature at the time snow fell.
- Major changes in plant pollen uncovered from lakebed cores in South America.
- Record lowest levels of methane retrieved from ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica.
- Beginning of desertification of Sahara (35th century BC). The shift by the Sahara Desert from a habitable region to a barren desert.
-
5go
chaos theory would address unforeseen or chance runaway effects in climate change.
But in jurassic park it didn't look good for us human this chaos theory meme.
-
dmouse
I wish they'd make up their minds, they've only just finished warning us about global cooling!:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
My own personal view is that of course global warming is happening, but that mankind has very little to do with it. I believe it's a natural cycle and I think it's stupid to spend billions on trying the stop it. The money would be better spent on adapting to it.
It's like building a house at the low tide mark and trying to stop the tide coming in - just build a new house farther up the beach! (I'm not trying to be flippant or downplay the problem, this is just an analogy.)
-
Seeker4
Global climate change means cooling in some areas, warming in others, a change in the weather patterns creating deserts in some areas due to the lack of rain. That is already happening in several parts of the globe.
Yes, there have always been changes in the Earth's climate. What we are seeing NOW, though, is a much more rapid change in weather patterns than ever before, and more weather extremes as the atmosphere becomes more chaotic. Perhaps adapting is the only answer. But what if there is more that can be done? It's hard to believe that the massive amounts of pollution that we dump into the atmosphere is NOT having an effect.
The point I was making in referencing these last two studies is that we have a consensus hundreds, if not thousands, of experts from around the world, and they agree that the climate is changing and humans are a factor. There may be differences of opinion on some of the details, but these two points seem to be agreed upon by the experts as they consider the evidence.
Yes, I also agree that Al Gore has sensationalized the issue, and some of the details he mentions in his film are questionable, BUT it has also created a wake-up call that more and more countries are responding to. Will it make a difference? We'll see.
Wanderer, I'm not a subscriber to World Watch, nor a part of Greenpeace. I admire some of the environmental organizations, but I think they also have some problems. Check out my thread from yesterday about the article on Stewart Brand and nuclear power. Brand and a handful of of other environmentalists are promoting what they call environmental heresies, (nuclear power, GMOs, etc) and I tend to agree with them.
S4
-
AuldSoul
I am concerned about a few things, Seeker4. Perhaps you would be willing to set my mind at ease.
I am confident that global warming is occurring—I do not require any further proof of that.
I am not confident that the consensus view of what constitutes a "significant contribution" to global warming matches what I would consider a significant contribution and can find precious little direct, unobfuscated communication regarding what the "significance" actually is in real numbers.
I am incredibly suspicious that this lack of clarity is to hide uncertainty and increase the odds of successfully selling to the general public what amounts to a blunder through this pressing "climatological disaster" on a best guess basis.
There are several basic building blocks of scientific proofs that I have not yet seen. I have not seen clear data charting a basic relationship between increase of what scientists are now calling "GHGs" and increased global temperatures reflected in analysis of atmospheric composition during various geological periods. I have not seen clear data charting cause and effect regarding the causes of global warming that span geologic ages.
If there is an undeniable connection why can't I find these sets of data? Why aren't these sets of data being heralded instead of consensus opinion?
I have seen sets of data that contradict the current assertions. What I sense is that there are a lot of people in a hurry to do something with little more than a hope that the something they are advocating will change one whit of the result. Lemmings come to mind.
These things leave me very unsettled as I recall a scientific community that advocated smoking of cigarettes to aid digestion, even placing cigarette ads with physician testimonials right into JAMA. I do not think these concerns are unreasonable in the least. I think answers to these concerns are the very least any honest inquirer could hope to find on the issue.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
Seeker4
I've been relying on the media for help in understanding this issue, and the NY Times has been particularly helpful.
I did an interview with a scientist and we discussed this, and I posted here http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/125818/1.ashx about that.
I don't have a science background that would allow me to read and understand the data on this, so I've been trying to rely on the experts. That's why these studies where hundreds of international scientists come to a consensus are compelling to me. IF this were so completely unsubstantiated, why wouldn't there be a huge outcry? To think that all these experts are part of some blind conspiracy is completely illogical. I also know that the technology for studying weather, ocean currents, etc. has made huge jumps over the past decade. It is my understanding that this more recent data is what is bringing more believers into the climate change chorus.
I live in New England, and I know we've seen some serious issues here - including lack of winter snow, unusually warm temperatures, the invasion of new plant, insect and animal species - all over the past 20 years.
I spent Xmas day with a family where the father is an animal vet. He said that one thing he's seen is that 20 years ago we did not have ticks in this area, but now we've warmed so much that ticks have become a huge problem.
These are big changes over a short period of time - and it is that accelerated rate of change that I think is key to this.
S4
-
AuldSoul
Seeker4,
I understand what you are saying, but I believe in climate change. I have never been a disbeliever in climate change. I am not convinced humans are causing climate change.
I have yet to see any article or product from scientists that does not combine these two into one thing, as though proving climate change automatically proves human cause and climate effect. It does not. That is Science 101. Even establishing a correlation between human activity and climate change does not scientifically establish a cause and effect relationship.
That is the piece that is missing and consensus opinion cannot be a substitute for it. A decade would not be nearly enough time to determine a cause and effect climatological relationship on a global scale.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul -
Seeker4
AuldSoul,
Yes - the extent of human activity affecting climate change seems to be the area of major debate.
In other words, most (including now even some of the formerly most vocal debaters against climate change) now agree that we are in the midst of climate change.
The debate has now switched to: Is this just a natural occurence, or is it being accelerated by human activity, and in particular the human production of greenhouse gases?
Again, part of the significance of these two studies that I referenced, is that the scientific consensus is that humans ARE a contributing factor, and we are perhaps the key factor in accelerating this process. That is significant to me.
I think there is also scientific agreement that Al Gore presents some projections (ie: the flooding of coastal cities) that very few scientists would agree with. BUT, he is also bringing some important attention to the issue. Check out Gaiagirl's comment on this on another thread that is fairly current on here. She is also an expert in this area and could perhaps help in this debate. I invite her to post on here.
If we are a contributing factor, then perhaps we can moderate the extent of change. If not, then as some have noted on here, we need to think about how we are going to adapt.
Personally, I see only benefits in polluting the land and atmosphere less than we have been, or perhaps not polluting it at all. We are part of a highly evolved and extremely stable eco system. It makes sense to me that essentially shitting all over that system may be a bad thing.
S4
-
SixofNine
I have yet to see any article or product from scientists that does not combine these two into one thing, as though proving climate change automatically proves human cause and climate effect. It does not. That is Science 101.
Poppycock. You don't see any scientist conflating these two things, you simply conflate them yourself, and assume, humorously, that scientist aren't way beyond you.
It's nice how you are going to teach the world's scientist the basics though.