Global Warning/Climate Change

[GaryK]

It really doesn't take a scientist to observe the fact that scientists never say what the weather is going to be on a certain day 3 weeks from now.

And that's because scientists try not to make predictions that they cannot reliably make, and they assign probabilities to the predictions they do make. Scientists have gotten good enough at predicting tomorrow's weather that I can decide whether to run in the morning and lay out the clothes I will need or plan a picnic at a given time during the day. They have gotten good enough at predicting a week's weather that I know what to pack if I am traveling somewhere. We trust these kinds of predictions because we have seen them work. And of course, we know how to predict seasons within a reasonable range.

Scientists also think they can predict global warming within a range of possible outcomes, and assign probabilities. That also comes from looking at what has accurately predicted these things in the past. Local regional changes are less predictable. There was a recent article comparing one particular research team's predictions to 15 years of data - they found that the simulations accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade to within a few hundredths of a degree.

And it really doesn't take a scientist to observe the fact that scientists can't and never will be able to say with certainty what the climate and earth is going to be like 50 years from now.

Even scientists say this. They give a range of probable outcomes, assigning probabilities to each. But they are also saying there is a significant risk. Can you say with certainty that there is not a significant risk?

I say that with a level of certainty these scientists will never use and I can say that because I believe as factual that ONLY God knows these things. Is that what you call arrogant blustering?

I would certainly agree that only God knows the future with certainty. But doesn't that mean we cannot say, with certainty, that scientists are wrong about this risk?

This post has reinforced the point I've been trying to make. I believe I have much more certainty in my belief that God alone controls weather cycles/patterns than the scientists can ever have. Just because they can pretty accurately predict short term weather in no way disproves my belief that God controls it. It actually strengthens my belief.

[Bootstrap]

This post has reinforced the point I've been trying to make. I believe I have much more certainty in my belief that God alone controls weather cycles/patterns than the scientists can ever have. Just because they can pretty accurately predict short term weather in no way disproves my belief that God controls it. It actually strengthens my belief.

I certainly agree with that. God alone controls the weather. But on my next trip, I'll still check what the scientists are predicting before I pack.

[Bootstrap]

I have never said (that I'm aware of) in any of my posts that I believe the things scientists are predicting about global warming/climate change will not happen. I have purposefully stayed away from this line of reasoning. If they do happen no one will be able to prove that it wasn't God's doing. There has been a deliberate attempt by much of the scientific community to prove God out of everything (including human origins) and I don't think climate scientists are an exception.

I think I'm beginning to understand where we see things differently. To me, being able to predict something has nothing to do with whether God is in control of it. For instance, I think scientists can reliably predict when the sun will rise and set at my house, but it's still beautiful and praiseworthy and in God's hands, and there will be a time that God discards the entire created universe like a man removing his garment. But for now, I can plan my day accordingly.

I don't think science is about proving or disproving God, but an awful lot of the way we interact with the physical world is based on the expectation we can't expect God to intervene most of the time. I buckle my seat belt when I drive and wear a jacket when rain is expected, even though God could intervene. Most of my life, I have worked a job, even though God could provide for me without that. Engineering builds on science, we build bridges so they are unlikely to collapse even if God does not intervene. Sometimes we fail, because we are human beings and things happen that we did not expect.

What I have been pushing back on is the idea that it's not sound reasoning to believe that whatever warming is currently taking place is being controlled by God alone.

To me, that's because I think that human actions still have consequences, even though God is ultimately in control. If I go out in the rain without a jacket, I am likely to get wet, though God could decide to keep me dry.

A question that I still haven't seen answered by anyone on this forum who believes what the scientists are saying, is why the present climate cycle is being associated with human activity but previous much more catastrophic ones weren't/aren't.

That's a great question. There are three basic reasons:

1. Carbon dioxide and global temperature rise are highly correlated, and
2. There are good scientific reasons to expect carbon dioxide to affect global temperature
3. Past predictions about future global temperature have been reasonably accurate, confirming our understanding of these mechanisms.

Naturally, human beings have had emitted more and more carbon dioxide year-by-year. This graph was created by NOAA, I can't find it on their site anymore, but Wikimedia has a cached copy. It overlays carbon emissions on the graph I showed earlier.

And predictions of the simplest things - like temperature and sea level - are easier than prediction of things like mid-tropospheric temperature, where even measuring the temperature is something we are still learning how to do.

[GaryK]

This post has reinforced the point I've been trying to make. I believe I have much more certainty in my belief that God alone controls weather cycles/patterns than the scientists can ever have. Just because they can pretty accurately predict short term weather in no way disproves my belief that God controls it. It actually strengthens my belief.

I certainly agree with that. God alone controls the weather. But on my next trip, I'll still check what the scientists are predicting before I pack.

Sure, I do the same. I can often quite accurately predict what our weather will be like here in GA when I hear what kind of weather my brother in Arkansas is experiencing. Neither he nor I are scientists.

[RZehr]

They could do that 2,000 years ago.

And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is. And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass. Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time? Luke 12

He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? Matthew 16

[GaryK]

I have never said (that I'm aware of) in any of my posts that I believe the things scientists are predicting about global warming/climate change will not happen. I have purposefully stayed away from this line of reasoning. If they do happen no one will be able to prove that it wasn't God's doing. There has been a deliberate attempt by much of the scientific community to prove God out of everything (including human origins) and I don't think climate scientists are an exception.

I think I'm beginning to understand where we see things differently. To me, being able to predict something has nothing to do with whether God is in control of it. For instance, I think scientists can reliably predict when the sun will rise and set at my house, but it's still beautiful and praiseworthy and in God's hands, and there will be a time that God discards the entire created universe like a man removing his garment. But for now, I can plan my day accordingly.

I don't think science is about proving or disproving God, but an awful lot of the way we interact with the physical world is based on the expectation we can't expect God to intervene most of the time. I buckle my seat belt when I drive and wear a jacket when rain is expected, even though God could intervene. Most of my life, I have worked a job, even though God could provide for me without that. Engineering builds on science, we build bridges so they are unlikely to collapse even if God does not intervene. Sometimes we fail, because we are human beings and things happen that we did not expect.

What I have been pushing back on is the idea that it's not sound reasoning to believe that whatever warming is currently taking place is being controlled by God alone.

To me, that's because I think that human actions still have consequences, even though God is ultimately in control. If I go out in the rain without a jacket, I am likely to get wet, though God could decide to keep me dry.

A question that I still haven't seen answered by anyone on this forum who believes what the scientists are saying, is why the present climate cycle is being associated with human activity but previous much more catastrophic ones weren't/aren't.

That's a great question. There are three basic reasons:

1. Carbon dioxide and global temperature rise are highly correlated, and
2. There are good scientific reasons to expect carbon dioxide to affect global temperature
3. Past predictions about future global temperature have been reasonably accurate, confirming our understanding of these mechanisms.

Naturally, human beings have had emitted more and more carbon dioxide year-by-year. This graph was created by NOAA, I can't find it on their site anymore, but Wikimedia has a cached copy. It overlays carbon emissions on the graph I showed earlier.

And predictions of the simplest things - like temperature and sea level - are easier than prediction of things like mid-tropospheric temperature, where even measuring the temperature is something we are still learning how to do.

You must have misunderstood my question. Why is the present climate cycle being associated with human activity but previous much more catastrophic one weren't/aren't? All you've done is repeat what you've been saying all along. Were the previous one human caused?

[Bootstrap]

You must have misunderstood my question. Why is the present climate cycle being associated with human activity but previous much more catastrophic one weren't/aren't? All you've done is repeat what you've been saying all along. Were the previous one human caused?

I guess I really don't understand the question, then. Some historical catastrophes were caused by humans, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cuyahoga River Disaster, AIDS, bad sanitary practices were likely a big factor in the black plague, huge numbers of mothers and babies died before scientists discovered bacteria and taught doctors to wash their hands, many cholera and typhoid and other epidemics happened because of poor sanitation techniques ... and the Great Mo0lasses Flood (no, I'm not kidding).


To me, it seems obvious that we need to trust God but also to avoid shooting ourselves in the foot.

But I feel like I'm missing your question. What am I missing?

[GaryK]

You must have misunderstood my question. Why is the present climate cycle being associated with human activity but previous much more catastrophic one weren't/aren't? All you've done is repeat what you've been saying all along. Were the previous one human caused?

I guess I really don't understand the question, then. Some historical catastrophes were caused by humans, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cuyahoga River Disaster, AIDS, bad sanitary practices were likely a big factor in the black plague, huge numbers of mothers and babies died before scientists discovered bacteria and taught doctors to wash their hands, many cholera and typhoid and other epidemics happened because of poor sanitation techniques ...

But I feel like I'm missing your question. What am I missing?

Did I really mention anything about human caused catastrophes in my question? Did you see the part about climate cycle?

[Robert]

[Bootstrap]

You must have misunderstood my question. Why is the present climate cycle being associated with human activity but previous much more catastrophic one weren't/aren't? All you've done is repeat what you've been saying all along. Were the previous one human caused?

Did I really mention anything about human caused catastrophes in my question? Did you see the part about climate cycle?

Here's where I'm getting lost. As I understand the science, we hit a critical mass where we are impacting the environment much more than we had been in the past because of the extent to which we are changing the atmosphere. That's what I tried to show earlier.

You are calling this "the present climate cycle". That presumes that this is just part of a normal cycle. But that's not what mainstream scientists are telling us, they are saying most of this is man-made.

Earlier cycles were not strongly influenced by humans because we weren't changing the atmosphere anywhere near as much before the industrial era.