Global Warning/Climate Change

[Dan Z]

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.

This is a very reasonable rut IMO.

[Wayne in Maine]

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.

This is a very reasonable rut IMO.

Scientists are human.
Scientific funding sources bias research.
Not all scientists who have an opinion on climatology have an opinion based on science.
The scientific community does not get to tell us what mainstream science says about global warming (we wouldn't understand it anyway), the media, entertainers, educators and politicians do.
Science is never "settled".
The "global warming" debate is really more about policy than science.
The actual science behind global anthropogenic global warming, in particular the predictive aspects of it, are based not on verifiable facts, but on models using unverified parameters.

[GaryK]

Looks like those of us making and selling sandwiches for a living are contributing to global warming. https://newatlas.com/sandwiches-global-warming/53128/

[gcdonner]

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.

But societal change will never come if that "one family" doesn't do it first, don't you agree?

[Bootstrap]

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

But societal change will never come if that "one family" doesn't do it first, don't you agree?

Sure, and even if I can't donate enough money to eliminate world hunger, I need to give to the poor. But that doesn't mean I can't save some of that money for other things. And that doesn't mean that I can eliminate world hunger by myself.

[gcdonner]

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

But societal change will never come if that "one family" doesn't do it first, don't you agree?

Sure, and even if I can't donate enough money to eliminate world hunger, I need to give to the poor. But that doesn't mean I can't save some of that money for other things. And that doesn't mean that I can eliminate world hunger by myself.

Those last statements are hedges against application, so that our meager efforts are justified in not "giving all".
Let's be brutally honest, we are too comfortable in our lifestyles to willingly make radical changes. A little here and a little there is done to assuage our consciences. I admit it, how about you?

[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.

But societal change will never come if that "one family" doesn't do it first, don't you agree?

It works two ways. Individual changes help societal changes and societal changes enable individual changes. I think a two-prong approach is justified.

[Bootstrap]

Scientists are human.
Scientific funding sources bias research.
Not all scientists who have an opinion on climatology have an opinion based on science.

All of this is true. On both sides of the debate. In addition, there are also lobbyist groups and "think tanks" (often thinly disguised lobbyist groups) and politicians who are putting their thumbs on the scale.

Which is why you need the scientific community to review each other's findings. Human knowledge is limited, but as humans go, scientists are better at science than non-scientists, and the process of scientific review is better than just trusting the scientist that gives you the results you want. We could discuss funding sources and such for John Christy and Judith Curry, if you like, but I don't think questioning the motivations of scientists is the best way to see if their data holds up. It's better to look at how scientists have compared their work to the work of others and taken it into account.

Science is never "settled".
The "global warming" debate is really more about policy than science.

Well, that's true. Global warming is no more settled than the science of lung cancer and seatbelts. We could learn new things that change our minds on these things. But the scientific communities in these fields are confident that their science is solid enough to inform policy. There are skeptics of the consensus in each of these fields, and some of same the lobbying firms have been active against the current consensus on both lung cancer and global warming.

The actual science behind global anthropogenic global warming, in particular the predictive aspects of it, are based not on verifiable facts, but on models using unverified parameters.

Actually, much of it is based on fairly direct measurements of things like surface temperature and sea level.



And if you go back and look at earlier reports, the IPCC predictions are the most accurate predictions of future temperature and sea level that I've been able to find. You like to quote Judith Curry, but she predicted that global warming would stop in 1995 and usher in a time of global cooling. Oops, let's make that 1995. Oops, let's make that 2002. Oops, let's make that 2007. Oops, let's make that 2010 ...

John Christy has argued that this does not correlate with his measurements - but these are measurements of mid-tropospheric temperature, and he doesn't actually measure temperature. Here's the graph Christy presented at the "Data or Dogma" hearing in Congress. John Cook has added his own comments, which I agree with:



Two climate scientists responded to this, and their testimony is posted on skeptical science.com. Here's what they said about satellites.

they are not thermometers in space. The satellite [temperature] data ... were obtained from so-called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs), which measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers. Converting this information to estimates of temperature trends has substantial uncertainties.

Converting this MSU data to temperature requires a complicated model with unverified parameters. It's not the solid ground you imply when you say that satellites "just measure" temperature. Satellites have microwave sensing units (MSUs) that measure voltage on detectors that detect microwave signals emitted by oxygen molecules, and the microwave signals vary depending on temperature changes. To get temperature from these signals requires a complex model that adjusts on various factors, and there's significant disagreement among scientists on how to do that most accurately.

And ... why this emphasis on the mid-troposphere? Shouldn't we be more concerned about what happens down here, where we know how to accurately measure temperature and sea level?

[Bootstrap]

The scientific community does not get to tell us what mainstream science says about global warming (we wouldn't understand it anyway), the media, entertainers, educators and politicians do.

Only if you prefer to read the media, entertainers, educators, and politicians. It's not at all hard to find the places where the scientific community tells us these things in easy-to-read language. I have posted resources and graphics created by NASA and NOAA today, shall we discuss them? I think you would find those particular resources easy to read. I have also pointed to resources on satellite temperature data, a graph of the process used to convert microwave sounding unit data to temperatures, and the disagreements among scientists on how best to interpret this data, shall we discuss them?

If we're going to let the media, entertainers, and politicians dominate this discussion, it can only lead to misinformation. I'm not sure why educators are on that list, though, when educators work together with scientists they can be quite helpful, we just have to make sure we use resources that the scientific community has signed off on.

I don't know how to reconcile "we would not understand them anyway" with a claim that we know better than they do and can unmask them. I think we actually can understand them, but we have to take the time to listen to them first.

Would you like to pick one of these topics to explore using resources that the mainstream scientific community has signed off on? Any topic, your choice. I bet I can find simple explanations that were produced by the mainstream scientific community or that they endorse.

Let's pick one topic, your choice, look at it carefully together, and stay on that topic. And let's start a separate thread for that topic, asking everyone to discuss just that one topic, no pot shots at other participants allowed, no politicized rhetoric, just the kind of discussion you would expect in a science class.

[Wayne in Maine]

The scientific community does not get to tell us what mainstream science says about global warming (we wouldn't understand it anyway), the media, entertainers, educators and politicians do.

Only if you prefer to read the media, entertainers, educators, and politicians. It's not at all hard to find the places where the scientific community tells us these things in easy-to-read language. I have posted resources and graphics created by NASA and NOAA today, shall we discuss them?

Most of your resources come from John Cooks "Skeptical Science" webpage. Look at your previous post - it even has his annotations. It doesn't matter if the source is NOAA or NASA, it's cherry picked by John Cook and it presents one side of the argument, not the full argument.

I do not deny that the earth is getting warmer, nor do any of the scientists who are labeled by John Cook as "deniers". I am skeptical of the climate models and the long term predictions of those models (they have not performed well) and even more skeptical of the speculation of disasters that is passed off as science.

Scientist are not as pure in the search of truth as you would like us to believe. Remember "hide the decline".