I didn’t know sea level rise was a matter of faith.

The USGS seems to think that sea level rise is something people should believe in. From newspress.com, Where does all the carbon dioxide in the Everglades go?

This is a fairly interesting article on studying CO2 uptake in the Everglades.  Some of the statements are interesting.  Such as:

Scientists know very little about atmospheric exchanges of greenhouse gasses in forested subtropical wetlands. These ecosystems turn carbon dioxide into usable substrate in a process that also releases oxygen and methane, another problematic greenhouse gas.

Wait.  I’ve been hearing for years about tropical and subtropical wetlands being carbon sinks.  I assumed that scientists knew what they were talking about.  Maybe not.

Then there was:  Though some don’t seem to believe in sea level rise — even though it’s been documented by federal agencies for more than a century — sea levels are rising across most of the globe.

I thought there was scientific evidence that allowed one to infer a 120-meter sea level rise over the last 20,000 years. It’s a matter of faith and belief?

Maybe someone thought that the article wouldn’t have been quite as interesting if we hadn’t thrown in the religion of climate change.

Advertisements

4 responses to “I didn’t know sea level rise was a matter of faith.

  1. “Though some don’t seem to believe in sea level rise”

    I see this more as a comment on the “some,” whom I suppose are “deniers,” rather then sea level rise itself.

    It’s funny about belief. About 10 years ago, I had a heated argument with a fellow Mensan over the issue of “belief.” In a light hearted manner, I had quipped that what believers and atheists had in common was belief. This one guy, an atheist, flew off the handle, throwing all kinds of accusations at me. I know atheists who aren’t like this, but, this was not the first time I’ve run into adamant atheist beliefs.

  2. It has to be a matter of faith, as it does not appear to be happening, at least not at a catastrophic rate. Somewhere around 3 mm/yr, or a foot in the next 100. Yet we are to believe 10-20 or more?

  3. The purpose of ‘belief’ in logic is to declare that a certain proposition is axiomatic and not a subject for debate, therefore diverting the line of inquiry to something where the faithful consider themselves more secure.
    Only a true mathematician can effectively abandon his axioms and posit a new logical structure sans the indefensible assumptions. IIRC, even Alfred North Whitehead found it highly challenging.
    OTOH, Kurt Goedel effectively demonstrated (the Incompleteness Theorems) that any purely logical scheme must necessarily be limited in scope.
    Only the empiricist even has access to an Irrefutable Authority, but the empiricist is limited in that, even though he knows exactly what Nature says, he cannot be clear on what it MEANS when Nature says something. 😦

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s