Global Warning/Climate Change

[Wayne in Maine]

I think we're coming from different places... there is a side in American politics that is objective and knows the right answers so that it can lead scientists in the right direction.

And which side is that?

[Wayne in Maine]

One of the words Donald Trump wanted to ban agencies from using was "evidence-based", another was "research-based".

Does that information come from the side in American politics that is objective and knows the right answers?
CDC director says there are ‘no banned words’ at the agency
Revealed: Bogus 'Trump Banned Words at the CDC' Story Was Rooted in Suggested Guidelines From Liberal Bureaucrats

[Robert]

One of the words Donald Trump wanted to ban agencies from using was "evidence-based", another was "research-based".

Does that information come from the side in American politics that is objective and knows the right answers?
CDC director says there are ‘no banned words’ at the agency
Revealed: Bogus 'Trump Banned Words at the CDC' Story Was Rooted in Suggested Guidelines From Liberal Bureaucrats

Annnddd,

this was pointed out earlier clearly, but some just do not seem to be able to accept new data when it does not fit their paradigm.

[Bootstrap]

One of the words Donald Trump wanted to ban agencies from using was "evidence-based", another was "research-based".

Does that information come from the side in American politics that is objective and knows the right answers?

Wayne, I don't think there is such a side. And I think that it is very harmful to our democracy and fellowship when people act like that's true, treat people who have different understandings as though they are some kind of enemy, and avoid looking at facts together to see what is true. In fact, that's really the most important thing for me in this thread.

But facts really are important to me, and the ability for people to look at facts together even if they don't agree on everything is important to me, so let's look at this.

CDC director says there are ‘no banned words’ at the agency
Revealed: Bogus 'Trump Banned Words at the CDC' Story Was Rooted in Suggested Guidelines From Liberal Bureaucrats

Ohio Jones reminded me of this, and pointed to this thread:

http://forum.mennonet.com/viewtopic.php ... =20#p24060

So I should have remembered that and not repeated it, since I really do have enough information to know exactly what was said.

But the main thing I wanted to say about Donald Trump was this:

I think we're coming from different places. I would really hate to see Al Gore or Donald Trump in charge of determining what research gets funded or published. I suspect they have really heavy thumbs.

We should be able to look at facts together and see what scientists are saying and why. I think that's easiest if you leave politicians out of it. I think it's easiest if you don't mock people who disagree with you or insist that they use your preferred vocabulary. We had started discussing things like Satellite temperatures, why different groups compute different temperature estimates from the data that satellites gather, etc. Can we continue that conversation?

Do you now agree that satellites don't measure temperature directly? Do you now agree that scientists disagree on how to convert satellite measurements to temperature estimates, and that it's reasonably complex, with various correction factors? If not, why not? Do you need more information? If you think I am wrong, can you provide more information?

[Bootstrap]

this was pointed out earlier clearly, but some just do not seem to be able to accept new data when it does not fit their paradigm.

I don't always remember everything, but I do try to take new data into account. Sorry I missed apologizing when Ohio Jones brought this up.

I suspect we all tend to steer by our own paradigms. That's why we need to listen to each other and learn from each other if we don't want to get stuck in old ruts.

One rut I'm firmly stuck in, though: I do think the scientific community gets to tell us what mainstream science says about global warming. I agree that scientists don't know everything, but we know even less about science than they do. I do believe in looking for verifiable fact, and I don't think that science is just a matter of opinion or some kind of hoax.

[gcdonner]

Sooo, I have a question for those who believe that climate change, ie Global Warming is a problem. Have you personally stopped driving a car, and are you now living off grid without any kind of fossil fuel being consumed whether in purchased items or otherwise? If you really believe that it will be a problem then you MUST change your entire lifestyle and go back to a totally agrarian lifestyle, even if it means moving to a different location, but of course you will have to go with animal power...
Think about it. I see and hear lots of rhetoric but very little actual, personal application of principles. If you are on this forum you have automatically dismissed yourself from the conversation as a "believer" in climate change that will be harmful to the world and it's population.
Think about it!?

[JimFoxvog]

I do live on an organic farm, drive a Prius (and not that much) or a bike, reduce, reuse, recycle.... But one family's change won't make much difference; it needs to be a societal change. That's why I try to help people realize this is a moral issue of caring for God's creation that he gave us stewardship over. We're in it together.

I think there are sustainable levels of fossil-fuel consumption, but it means cutting way down. Carbon Offsets seem reasonable:

After reduction has reached its limit, or its comfortable threshold, carbon offsets can make up for the rest. Carbon offsets are a form of trade. When you buy an offset, you fund projects that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. ... Carbon offsets are voluntary. https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/u ... stions.xml

If we cared about poverty or pollution, we should do much the same.

[Bootstrap]

I do live on an organic farm, drive a Prius (and not that much) or a bike, reduce, reuse, recycle.... But one family's change won't make much difference; it needs to be a societal change. That's why I try to help people realize this is a moral issue of caring for God's creation that he gave us stewardship over. We're in it together.

I drive a Nissan Versa about twice a week, compost, and use much less than most people. I suspect most Mennonites do. And I agree, what one person does is not enough. I believe that hunger is a real problem, but I have not given all of my money to the poor, I do give to the poor and I also encourage others to do so.

But there's another issue here. Some people think facts matter and can be found, others think there's no such thing as truth. Traditionally, Christians have been great believers that facts and truth exist, and that they matter, but we have also realized that humans know in part and are easily misled. The scientific community also operates this way.

If you don't think facts are knowable, then you can either (1) stop trying to talk about facts, or (2) engage in all kinds of hogwash to try to impress other people without worrying too much about the facts. And that's becoming a huge part of our culture, particularly our political culture.

If it's important to have a thread on global warming (and I didn't think it was), then it's important to take time to understand what scientists are actually saying and why. If you get your information primarily from sites trying to discredit the mainstream scientific community, you probably aren't hearing what the mainstream scientific community is saying.

[Bootstrap]

I think we're coming from different places... there is a side in American politics that is objective and knows the right answers so that it can lead scientists in the right direction.

And which side is that?

I don't know if you were intentionally misquoting me or if what I said was unclear, here's what I said originally:

To me, this undercurrent of conspiracy theory is really driving much of the discussion of global warming, and it implies that mainstream science is corrupt and partisan, but there is a side in American politics that is objective and knows the right answers so that it can lead scientists in the right direction. To me, it feels like some people are implying that the scientists who specialize in these fields don't know the things that the politicians can teach them, or that they have never read what John Christy or Judith Curry write, or that they are just too stupid to understand, or that someone has bought off all of mainstream science but right wing politicians are as pure as driven snow and can lead them on the right path.

I was speaking of politicians who want to tell scientists what they should find, and of people who think of science as a contest between their heroes and the evil enemies who don't believe what they should. It's the conspiracy theorists who believe in that, not me. That's not the right way to look at scientific questions.

[Bootstrap]

Logically it makes little sense to rely on mechanical thermometers that are not evenly distributed across the globe as a measurement of global temperature.

Given the distribution of measuring instruments one can best conclude that the United States, and urban centers of Africa, the pacific rim and Western Europe have warmed..

We also have measurements from both poles and the oceans, with fairly extensive coverage. I don't know what that map shows, but if you consider how much of the world you can get weather reports for - land and sea, if you pay attention to NOAA - we are measuring temperature in a whole lot of places not shown in that map.

We have been measuring temperature on land and sea for more than a century. Here's what's changed over a 30 year period:



But global warming is usually about what happens on the ground, where humans live. If the seas rise, they will rise down here, not up in the mid-troposphere. And here on the ground, we can measure temperature directly instead of inferring it from measuring radiance with satellites, and scientists agree on how to do that. Here's how that temperature has been changing:

Screen Shot 2018-01-25 at 7.59.32 AM.png (35.58 KiB) Viewed 370 times

There's very good agreement on this. Carbon Brief compares four sets of measurements for this here:



So when John Christy says that the mid-troposphere is warming more slowly than the earth's surface, what should I learn from that? What is the significance of the mid-troposphere for global warming? Why should I be comforted if the mid-troposphere is warming less rapidly than it is down here? And why should I believe his estimates of mid-troposphere temperature more than that of other scientists looking at the same data?