He's clearly attributing to God the idea that Earth is made to work well for man - that it is robust, self correcting, etc., for mankind. That is purely a religious idea. It has no foundation in science. The idea that God created Earth such that it would always be a comfortable place for mankind has no basis in science. He claims to be a scientist, yet he rejects science - and not just climate science. That's ok, of course - we don't restrict religious belief. BUT, we're supposed to able to detect stuff like that so we don't end up quoting religious sources as if they were science.
He previously served in the Environmental Studies Program and was a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) where he served as Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado Boulder from 2001 to 2007. Pielke was a visiting scholar at Oxford University's Saïd Business School in the 2007-2008 academic year.[2] A prolific writer, his interests include understanding the politicization of science; decision making under uncertainty; policy education for scientists in areas such as climate change, disaster mitigation, and world trade; and research on the governance of sports organizations, including FIFA and the NCAA. Contents 1Education and background 2Professional writing 3Grijalva Investigation 4Publications 5See also 6References 7External links Education and background[edit] Pielke earned a B.A. in mathematics (1990), an M.A. in public policy (1992), and a Ph.D. in political science, all from the University of Colorado Boulder. Prior to his positions at CU-Boulder, from 1993 to 2001 he was a staff scientist[3] in the Environmental and Societal Impacts Group of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. From 2002 to 2004 Pielke was Director of Graduate Studies for the CU-Boulder Graduate Program in Environmental Studies and in 2001 students selected him for the Outstanding Graduate Advisor Award. Pielke serves on numerous editorial boards and advisory committees, retains many professional affiliations, and sat on the Board of Directors of WeatherData, Inc. from 2001 to 2006. In 2012 he was awarded an honorary doctorate by Linköping University[4][5] and the Public Service Award of the Geological Society of America.[
What I find so interesting about warmer oceans, is exactly how much warmer and where is the warming? For instance close to Florida the Atlantic gets up to over 80 degrees. We would expect the global oceans to also get up to 80 degrees to match man caused predictions. But on the Pacific region, such as off Washington state, Oregon, Ca and so on, it stays in the 50s. Also it should be far warmer at the Antarctic region based on the example of 80 degrees or more off the coast of Florida and in the Caribbean. But the alarmists ring the bells of man being doomed by the water off of Florida yet do not speak of the frigid water off the west coast of the USA. Makes me go huh? Why are they ignoring the frigid seas? (they = alarmists = yanking out hair on forums yelling to blame man. Man the ugly duckling does not care about Earth and wants to warm it up)
Here are the observable options then. 1. God created the universe and in the process bodies such as Suns, planets and matter were created. 2. The universe did not exist yet managed to spring forth out of absolutely nothing at all. 3. Some magic caused an explosion that magically created matter out of absolutely nothing. 4. Atoms managed to self create. 5. Planets are simply a collection of many elements that also came from nowhere and now exist. Who can help me expand the list? Man is so perfect he and his science is so excellent solving problems that they proved no such thing as GOD exists. For the GOD to exist it means man must by definition engage in worship. Or, GOD can exist and be independent of man or some event happening called worship. GOD is the root of creation. Evolution being change of course is a natural thing due to the way GOD created everything. If one accepts evolution, it rules out GOD. (fiction in my mind) i have included a number of ideas to allow others to try to add or detract to their own free will and their belief in a kind of religion called science. Why call science religion? For the same reason others call GOD religion.
The oceans have warmed by about 300e21 joules since 1960. The warming is the net sum of all increases/decreases over the entire horizontal and vertical dimensions of the ocean. In other words, the entire thing. To put that into perspective this is enough energy to raise the temperature of troposphere by more than 6C if that energy could entirely transfer into the troposphere (it can't actually happen though). Why are you expecting that? That would be another 10C rise averaged over the entire ocean. It would take more than 30x as much energy as what has already accumulated. Assuming it accumulates at the same rate it will take another 1000 years for that to happen. I'm not following you here? What's your concern here? The concern among scientists is the water level rise and pressure the temperature change puts on aquatic life to adapt. Again. I'm not following you here. What are you thinking? If you think scientists are ignoring colder areas of the ocean I can assure you they are not. In fact, it's the cooler areas near the poles that get the most attention. As the water warms it allows more sea ice to melt which allows more sunlight to further warm the ocean in a positive feedback.
This is irrelevant. But, I'd point out that we DO see matter spontaneously spring from a vacuum. Remember the equivalence of energy and mass. We have almost no evidence of what is outside our universe. And, that includes the "environment" from which this universe sprang. I'm not arguing against your religion. I'm simply presenting what science has discovered through investigation of this universe. As an aside, I absolutely do NOT agree that evolution rules out the existence of a God. For example, a perfect and all powerful god could surely contrive a "big bang" that would result in mankind on a lively planet without a requirement for making daily corrections and constant revisions through pre-history. Beyond that, a totally creationist viewpoint still does not imply that we should take no action to mitigate the serious problems created by mankind. Nor does it imply that human understanding of our universe through science must be ignored.
I totally disagree. An acknowledgement of evolution in no way invalidates the possibility of God, an intelligent designer, or whoever deity one might believe in. There is absolutely no reason why this deity wouldn't have created the laws of physics in just the right way and with the forethought that life would spring up. That is certainly more majestic than believing this deity just sprinkled some fairy dust on Earth and poof humans popped into existence. Similar to the above maybe the randomness of quantum mechanics is the fundamental physical process by which this deity endowed mankind with free will. Personally I find this digression mostly moot to the topic of this thread so I'll wrap up my post with one last comment more to the point. Whatever the means by which something (the universe) sprang out of nothing (whatever that means) mankind clearly has the ability to set our own destiny. If we harm our planet that's on us; not God.
You spoke as if you agree with me but claimed you do not agree. I am baffled. See your top comment. I believe your final comments to be true.
I (fiction) in my remarks to evolution. It means you agree with me. i do not believe evolution rules GOD out. I did not argue that GOD takes charge of our lives. I too do not believe when there is a problem, man is to ignore the problem. Take the plastic floating in the ocean. Man discovered it, Government is doing little or nothing on the problem given that it is private parties trying to capture the plastic, so trust man to solve a huge number of problems since man is much more able to solve problems than is government. I also advocate man fully embraces science and uses it for good.
Show me sea rise globally and not just in a particular place. Clearly you do not understand what I said. I replied to another poster and hopefully my comments clear things up. I will happily respond to a list of questions leaving out your own opinions. As to your opinions, you may also offer them in a separate part of a post or several posts.
Your statement would be accurate if you stipulated it could be that a very tiny portion is to be blamed on man. Even your side is quoted by me as saying man does not control climate but has some kind of effect. I suppose if I walk outside and blow into the wind, it too has some impact and clearly i do not control the wind but yet i would have a very minimum impact.
I don't get your first sentence, but I don't see that anything in your post has a real bearing on the thread topic. I'd point out that individuals have not even come close to solving the floating ocean plastic problem. And for the most part, man has not been interested in having government do anything about it, either. Suggesting that is a government failure, not an individual failure is nonsense. We of America haven't wanted government to do more than minor steps on plastic. When we don't want government to do anything, then government accommodates that.
You quoted a guy who stated in 2007 that: "As I have summarized on the Climate Science weblog, humans activities do significantly alter the heat content of the climate system, although, based on the latest understanding, the radiative effect of CO2 has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up to the present. The other 72% is still a result of human activities!"
I don't get half of what you say since to me it diverts from my science based posts. Individuals are at sea now collecting ocean trash plastic. And you are correct that Government is not lifting a finger. In effect you agree with me. Do you mean the government is successful given it is not involved with the private parties currently clearing the plastic off the coast of CA?
No, I mean if we don't want our government cleaning up our trash, then the government won't pick up our trash. The thing is, that is a SUCCESS of the government. It's the government doing what we want it to do. We ARE the government. The government isn't somebody else. It's not Russia or Mexico. Or some guy living in Saudi Arabia. It's us. As an individual, I do consider it a failure. But, it's a failure of the people - who chose to elect representation that is pretty much fine with square miles of ocean being covered in plastic. I applaud anyone who heads out to the plastic dump and pulls some out of it. I'd donate some bucks to that. But, suggesting they are "succeeding" is nonsense.
So these CA citizens are a failure. Sorry you feel that way. Japan is doing this. Citizens of CA doing our share Sorry you have not participated and sorry the Government is not either.
Cleaning up the environment is not something the US population has been interested in. I'm glad to see some individuals attempting to buck that trend. However, do-gooders aren't really going to overcome the polluters without help from government. Tons more plastic is entering the ocean all the time. And, individuals aren't likely to identify those who do that and then stop them without government help.
What I see is capitalism at work where one person's trash is another's profit and good done for the Earth.
More from Curry's forum Resplandy et al. Part 4: Further developments https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/23/resplandy-et-al-part-4-further-developments/#more-24492 See link since there are graphs, etc to study
You never would say that (at least I hope not) had you studied this. I posted proof I am being accurate.
No. You posted some do-gooder who is trying to make some sort of progress toward cleaning up one problem that is being exacerbated today. That's not evidence that our system is self rectifying in environmental pollution. Today, we KNOW that greenhouse gasses are a problem. In fact, we know that major energy corporations have recognized the truth of that - and we know there reaction. What would it take to have corporations care even one tiny little bit? In a free market capitalist model such as ours, who is going to pay to clean our atmosphere?
