Yes, "God" is punishing CA because they believe in fair treatment of gays.
Two things:
1, You are an idiot.
2, There is no "god".
Climate change is UN-led hoax to create 'new world order' – Australian PM's adviser
- Thread starter achilles28
- Start date
Yes, "God" is punishing CA because they believe in fair treatment of gays.
Two things:
1, You are an idiot.
2, There is no "god".
Q http://theaimn.com/pity-the-climate-change-denialist/#comment-349997
Terry2
May 9, 2015 at 3:12 pm
Maurice Newman seems to follow the philosophy espoused by Mark Twain :
“To succeed in life you need two things : ignorance and confidence”
or perhaps he would be better advised to consider :
“It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt”
UQ
Terry2
May 9, 2015 at 3:12 pm
Maurice Newman seems to follow the philosophy espoused by Mark Twain :
“To succeed in life you need two things : ignorance and confidence”
or perhaps he would be better advised to consider :
“It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt”
UQ
Q http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries#CITEREFSteffenRockstr.C3.B6mCostanza2011
The nine boundaries
Thresholds and boundaries
The threshold, or climatological tipping point, is the value at which a very small increment for the control variable (like CO2) produces a large, possibly catastrophic, change in the response variable (global warming).
The threshold points are difficult to locate, because the Earth System is very complex. Instead of defining the threshold value, the study establishes a range, and the threshold is supposed to lie inside it. The lower end of that range is defined as the boundary. Therefore it defines a safe space, in the sense that as long as we are below the boundary, we are below the threshold value. If the boundary is crossed, we enter into a danger zone.[1]
UQ
The nine boundaries
Thresholds and boundaries
The threshold, or climatological tipping point, is the value at which a very small increment for the control variable (like CO2) produces a large, possibly catastrophic, change in the response variable (global warming).
The threshold points are difficult to locate, because the Earth System is very complex. Instead of defining the threshold value, the study establishes a range, and the threshold is supposed to lie inside it. The lower end of that range is defined as the boundary. Therefore it defines a safe space, in the sense that as long as we are below the boundary, we are below the threshold value. If the boundary is crossed, we enter into a danger zone.[1]
UQ
Science Magazine
Q http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855
Published Online January 15 2015
Science 13 February 2015:
Vol. 347 no. 6223
DOI: 10.1126/science.1259855
Research Article
Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet
Will Steffen1,2,*, Katherine Richardson3, Johan Rockström1, Sarah E. Cornell1, Ingo Fetzer1, Elena M. Bennett4, Reinette Biggs1,5, Stephen R. Carpenter6, Wim de Vries7,8, Cynthia A. de Wit9, Carl Folke1,10, Dieter Gerten11, Jens Heinke11,12,13, Georgina M. Mace14, Linn M. Persson15, Veerabhadran Ramanathan16,17, Belinda Reyers1,18, Sverker Sörlin19
1Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden.
2Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
3Center for Macroecology, Evolution, and Climate, University of Copenhagen, Natural History Museum of Denmark, Universitetsparken 15, Building 3, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
4Department of Natural Resource Sciences and McGill School of Environment, McGill University, 21, 111 Lakeshore Road, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC H9X 3V9, Canada.
5Centre for Studies in Complexity, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Stellenbosch 7602, South Africa.
6Center for Limnology, University of Wisconsin, 680 North Park Street, Madison WI 53706 USA.
7Alterra Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 47, 6700AA Wageningen, Netherlands.
8Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, Netherlands.
9Department of Environmental Science and Analytical Chemistry, Stockholm University, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden.
10Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, SE-10405 Stockholm, Sweden.
11Research Domain Earth System Analysis, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Telegraphenberg A62, 14473 Potsdam, Germany.
12International Livestock Research Institute, P.O. Box 30709, Nairobi, 00100 Kenya.
13CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization), St. Lucia, QLD 4067, Australia.
14Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research (CBER), Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
15Stockholm Environment Institute, Linnégatan 87D, SE-10451 Stockholm, Sweden.
16Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego, 8622 Kennel Way, La Jolla, CA 92037 USA.
17TERI (The Energy and Resources Institute) University, 10 Institutional Area, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, Delhi 110070, India.
18Natural Resources and the Environment, CSIR, P.O. Box 320, Stellenbosch 7599, South Africa.
19Division of History of Science, Technology and Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-10044 Stockholm, Sweden.
↵*Corresponding author. E-mail: will.steffen{at}anu.edu.au
Crossing the boundaries in global sustainability
The planetary boundary (PB) concept, introduced in 2009, aimed to define the environmental limits within which humanity can safely operate. This approach has proved influential in global sustainability policy development. Steffen et al. provide an updated and extended analysis of the PB framework. Of the original nine proposed boundaries, they identify three (including climate change) that might push the Earth system into a new state if crossed and that also have a pervasive influence on the remaining boundaries. They also develop the PB framework so that it can be applied usefully in a regional context.
Science, this issue 10.1126/science.1259855
Structured Abstract
INTRODUCTION
There is an urgent need for a new paradigm that integrates the continued development of human societies and the maintenance of the Earth system (ES) in a resilient and accommodating state. The planetary boundary (PB) framework contributes to such a paradigm by providing a science-based analysis of the risk that human perturbations will destabilize the ES at the planetary scale. Here, the scientific underpinnings of the PB framework are updated and strengthened.
RATIONALE
The relatively stable, 11,700-year-long Holocene epoch is the only state of the ES that we know for certain can support contemporary human societies. There is increasing evidence that human activities are affecting ES functioning to a degree that threatens the resilience of the ES—its ability to persist in a Holocene-like state in the face of increasing human pressures and shocks. The PB framework is based on critical processes that regulate ES functioning. By combining improved scientific understanding of ES functioning with the precautionary principle, the PB framework identifies levels of anthropogenic perturbations below which the risk of destabilization of the ES is likely to remain low—a “safe operating space” for global societal development. A zone of uncertainty for each PB highlights the area of increasing risk. The current level of anthropogenic impact on the ES, and thus the risk to the stability of the ES, is assessed by comparison with the proposed PB (see the figure).
RESULTS
Three of the PBs (climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, and ocean acidification) remain essentially unchanged from the earlier analysis. Regional-level boundaries as well as globally aggregated PBs have now been developed for biosphere integrity (earlier “biodiversity loss”), biogeochemical flows, land-system change, and freshwater use. At present, only one regional boundary (south Asian monsoon) can be established for atmospheric aerosol loading. Although we cannot identify a single PB for novel entities (here defined as new substances, new forms of existing substances, and modified life forms that have the potential for unwanted geophysical and/or biological effects), they are included in the PB framework, given their potential to change the state of the ES. Two of the PBs—climate change and biosphere integrity—are recognized as “core” PBs based on their fundamental importance for the ES. The climate system is a manifestation of the amount, distribution, and net balance of energy at Earth’s surface; the biosphere regulates material and energy flows in the ES and increases its resilience to abrupt and gradual change. Anthropogenic perturbation levels of four of the ES processes/features (climate change, biosphere integrity, biogeochemical flows, and land-system change) exceed the proposed PB (see the figure).
CONCLUSIONS
PBs are scientifically based levels of human perturbation of the ES beyond which ES functioning may be substantially altered. Transgression of the PBs thus creates substantial risk of destabilizing the Holocene state of the ES in which modern societies have evolved. The PB framework does not dictate how societies should develop. These are political decisions that must include consideration of the human dimensions, including equity, not incorporated in the PB framework. Nevertheless, by identifying a safe operating space for humanity on Earth, the PB framework can make a valuable contribution to decision-makers in charting desirable courses for societal development.
Figure
View larger version:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855/F1.large.jpg
In this window
Download PowerPoint Slide for Teaching
Current status of the control variables for seven of the planetary boundaries.
The green zone is the safe operating space, the yellow represents the zone of uncertainty (increasing risk), and the red is a high-risk zone. The planetary boundary itself lies at the intersection of the green and yellow zones. The control variables have been normalized for the zone of uncertainty; the center of the figure therefore does not represent values of 0 for the control variables. The control variable shown for climate change is atmospheric CO2 concentration. Processes for which global-level boundaries cannot yet be quantified are represented by gray wedges; these are atmospheric aerosol loading, novel entities, and the functional role of biosphere integrity.
Abstract
The planetary boundaries framework defines a safe operating space for humanity based on the intrinsic biophysical processes that regulate the stability of the Earth system. Here, we revise and update the planetary boundary framework, with a focus on the underpinning biophysical science, based on targeted input from expert research communities and on more general scientific advances over the past 5 years. Several of the boundaries now have a two-tier approach, reflecting the importance of cross-scale interactions and the regional-level heterogeneity of the processes that underpin the boundaries. Two core boundaries—climate change and biosphere integrity—have been identified, each of which has the potential on its own to drive the Earth system into a new state should they be substantially and persistently transgressed.
Received for publication 11 August 2014.
Accepted for publication 8 January 2015.
Read the Full Text
UQ
Q http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855
Published Online January 15 2015
Science 13 February 2015:
Vol. 347 no. 6223
DOI: 10.1126/science.1259855
Research Article
Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet
Will Steffen1,2,*, Katherine Richardson3, Johan Rockström1, Sarah E. Cornell1, Ingo Fetzer1, Elena M. Bennett4, Reinette Biggs1,5, Stephen R. Carpenter6, Wim de Vries7,8, Cynthia A. de Wit9, Carl Folke1,10, Dieter Gerten11, Jens Heinke11,12,13, Georgina M. Mace14, Linn M. Persson15, Veerabhadran Ramanathan16,17, Belinda Reyers1,18, Sverker Sörlin19
1Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden.
2Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia.
3Center for Macroecology, Evolution, and Climate, University of Copenhagen, Natural History Museum of Denmark, Universitetsparken 15, Building 3, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
4Department of Natural Resource Sciences and McGill School of Environment, McGill University, 21, 111 Lakeshore Road, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC H9X 3V9, Canada.
5Centre for Studies in Complexity, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Stellenbosch 7602, South Africa.
6Center for Limnology, University of Wisconsin, 680 North Park Street, Madison WI 53706 USA.
7Alterra Wageningen University and Research Centre, P.O. Box 47, 6700AA Wageningen, Netherlands.
8Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, Netherlands.
9Department of Environmental Science and Analytical Chemistry, Stockholm University, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden.
10Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, SE-10405 Stockholm, Sweden.
11Research Domain Earth System Analysis, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Telegraphenberg A62, 14473 Potsdam, Germany.
12International Livestock Research Institute, P.O. Box 30709, Nairobi, 00100 Kenya.
13CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization), St. Lucia, QLD 4067, Australia.
14Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research (CBER), Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
15Stockholm Environment Institute, Linnégatan 87D, SE-10451 Stockholm, Sweden.
16Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego, 8622 Kennel Way, La Jolla, CA 92037 USA.
17TERI (The Energy and Resources Institute) University, 10 Institutional Area, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, Delhi 110070, India.
18Natural Resources and the Environment, CSIR, P.O. Box 320, Stellenbosch 7599, South Africa.
19Division of History of Science, Technology and Environment, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, SE-10044 Stockholm, Sweden.
↵*Corresponding author. E-mail: will.steffen{at}anu.edu.au
Crossing the boundaries in global sustainability
The planetary boundary (PB) concept, introduced in 2009, aimed to define the environmental limits within which humanity can safely operate. This approach has proved influential in global sustainability policy development. Steffen et al. provide an updated and extended analysis of the PB framework. Of the original nine proposed boundaries, they identify three (including climate change) that might push the Earth system into a new state if crossed and that also have a pervasive influence on the remaining boundaries. They also develop the PB framework so that it can be applied usefully in a regional context.
Science, this issue 10.1126/science.1259855
Structured Abstract
INTRODUCTION
There is an urgent need for a new paradigm that integrates the continued development of human societies and the maintenance of the Earth system (ES) in a resilient and accommodating state. The planetary boundary (PB) framework contributes to such a paradigm by providing a science-based analysis of the risk that human perturbations will destabilize the ES at the planetary scale. Here, the scientific underpinnings of the PB framework are updated and strengthened.
RATIONALE
The relatively stable, 11,700-year-long Holocene epoch is the only state of the ES that we know for certain can support contemporary human societies. There is increasing evidence that human activities are affecting ES functioning to a degree that threatens the resilience of the ES—its ability to persist in a Holocene-like state in the face of increasing human pressures and shocks. The PB framework is based on critical processes that regulate ES functioning. By combining improved scientific understanding of ES functioning with the precautionary principle, the PB framework identifies levels of anthropogenic perturbations below which the risk of destabilization of the ES is likely to remain low—a “safe operating space” for global societal development. A zone of uncertainty for each PB highlights the area of increasing risk. The current level of anthropogenic impact on the ES, and thus the risk to the stability of the ES, is assessed by comparison with the proposed PB (see the figure).
RESULTS
Three of the PBs (climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, and ocean acidification) remain essentially unchanged from the earlier analysis. Regional-level boundaries as well as globally aggregated PBs have now been developed for biosphere integrity (earlier “biodiversity loss”), biogeochemical flows, land-system change, and freshwater use. At present, only one regional boundary (south Asian monsoon) can be established for atmospheric aerosol loading. Although we cannot identify a single PB for novel entities (here defined as new substances, new forms of existing substances, and modified life forms that have the potential for unwanted geophysical and/or biological effects), they are included in the PB framework, given their potential to change the state of the ES. Two of the PBs—climate change and biosphere integrity—are recognized as “core” PBs based on their fundamental importance for the ES. The climate system is a manifestation of the amount, distribution, and net balance of energy at Earth’s surface; the biosphere regulates material and energy flows in the ES and increases its resilience to abrupt and gradual change. Anthropogenic perturbation levels of four of the ES processes/features (climate change, biosphere integrity, biogeochemical flows, and land-system change) exceed the proposed PB (see the figure).
CONCLUSIONS
PBs are scientifically based levels of human perturbation of the ES beyond which ES functioning may be substantially altered. Transgression of the PBs thus creates substantial risk of destabilizing the Holocene state of the ES in which modern societies have evolved. The PB framework does not dictate how societies should develop. These are political decisions that must include consideration of the human dimensions, including equity, not incorporated in the PB framework. Nevertheless, by identifying a safe operating space for humanity on Earth, the PB framework can make a valuable contribution to decision-makers in charting desirable courses for societal development.
Figure
View larger version:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855/F1.large.jpg
In this window
Download PowerPoint Slide for Teaching
Current status of the control variables for seven of the planetary boundaries.
The green zone is the safe operating space, the yellow represents the zone of uncertainty (increasing risk), and the red is a high-risk zone. The planetary boundary itself lies at the intersection of the green and yellow zones. The control variables have been normalized for the zone of uncertainty; the center of the figure therefore does not represent values of 0 for the control variables. The control variable shown for climate change is atmospheric CO2 concentration. Processes for which global-level boundaries cannot yet be quantified are represented by gray wedges; these are atmospheric aerosol loading, novel entities, and the functional role of biosphere integrity.
Abstract
The planetary boundaries framework defines a safe operating space for humanity based on the intrinsic biophysical processes that regulate the stability of the Earth system. Here, we revise and update the planetary boundary framework, with a focus on the underpinning biophysical science, based on targeted input from expert research communities and on more general scientific advances over the past 5 years. Several of the boundaries now have a two-tier approach, reflecting the importance of cross-scale interactions and the regional-level heterogeneity of the processes that underpin the boundaries. Two core boundaries—climate change and biosphere integrity—have been identified, each of which has the potential on its own to drive the Earth system into a new state should they be substantially and persistently transgressed.
Received for publication 11 August 2014.
Accepted for publication 8 January 2015.
Read the Full Text
UQ
Last edited:
Bullshit. Climatologists can't predict the weather 5 days ahead, better then a coin flip. What makes you think they can predict the weather 5 years ahead. Or 5 decades. Or 500 years from now. Pure masterbation
Chapter 10 (P.184 - 197)
Limits of Scientific Knowledge
by John R. Albright
http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/doc...uddhism, Christianity and Science_Numrich.pdf
" http://www.ourebook.org/uncategoriz...-buddhism-christianity-and-science_19fds.html
Paul D Numrich, "The Boundaries of Knowledge in Buddhism, Christianity, and Science"
Va.....oeck & Ru....ht | 2008-12-31 | ISBN: 3525569874 | 200 pages | PDF | 5,8 MB
This volume brings together insights from religion (represented by Buddhism and Christianity) and science to address the question, What can we know about reality? Here science and religion engage each other in the human endeavour to understand a reality tantalizingly beyond our ability to understand fully."
Q http://www.amazon.com/Boundaries-Knowledge-Christianity-Theologie-Naturwissenschaft/dp/3525569874
The Boundaries of Knowledge in Buddhism, Christianity, and Science (Religion, Theologie und Naturwissenschaft / Religion, Theology, and Natural Science )
UQ
Limits of Scientific Knowledge
by John R. Albright
http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/doc...uddhism, Christianity and Science_Numrich.pdf
" http://www.ourebook.org/uncategoriz...-buddhism-christianity-and-science_19fds.html
Paul D Numrich, "The Boundaries of Knowledge in Buddhism, Christianity, and Science"
Va.....oeck & Ru....ht | 2008-12-31 | ISBN: 3525569874 | 200 pages | PDF | 5,8 MB
This volume brings together insights from religion (represented by Buddhism and Christianity) and science to address the question, What can we know about reality? Here science and religion engage each other in the human endeavour to understand a reality tantalizingly beyond our ability to understand fully."
Q http://www.amazon.com/Boundaries-Knowledge-Christianity-Theologie-Naturwissenschaft/dp/3525569874
The Boundaries of Knowledge in Buddhism, Christianity, and Science (Religion, Theologie und Naturwissenschaft / Religion, Theology, and Natural Science )
UQ
Most Australians view climate change as already causing weather extremes: Ipsos
Date
May 9, 2015
Q http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...g-weather-extremes-ipsos-20150508-ggww6v.html
A clear majority of Australians view global warming as already causing extreme weather events such as storms, droughts and floods and just 3 per cent say "there is no such thing as climate change", according to the findings in an Ipsos survey.
Just over 60 per cent of the 1063 respondents in the report – the eighth annual survey on the subject – viewed climate change as behind extreme events, with similar numbers also linking the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef and rising sea levels to warming global temperatures.
Separately, about 40 per cent of respondents viewed climate change as either entirely or mainly caused by human activity, while another 43 per cent said both human and natural forces are at play. Just 3 per cent dismissed climate change altogether and another 4 per cent viewed changes as entirely naturally.
UQ
Date
May 9, 2015
Q http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...g-weather-extremes-ipsos-20150508-ggww6v.html
A clear majority of Australians view global warming as already causing extreme weather events such as storms, droughts and floods and just 3 per cent say "there is no such thing as climate change", according to the findings in an Ipsos survey.
Just over 60 per cent of the 1063 respondents in the report – the eighth annual survey on the subject – viewed climate change as behind extreme events, with similar numbers also linking the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef and rising sea levels to warming global temperatures.
Separately, about 40 per cent of respondents viewed climate change as either entirely or mainly caused by human activity, while another 43 per cent said both human and natural forces are at play. Just 3 per cent dismissed climate change altogether and another 4 per cent viewed changes as entirely naturally.
UQ
