MennoNet.com

JimFoxvog wrote:

Robert wrote:

Bootstrap wrote:I don't really understand why some people think it's important to campaign against mainstream science.

I don't really understand why some people think it's important to campaign for mainstream science.

If the scientific concensus is true, then there are significant risks for a significant portion of humanity. If we, as Christians, care about the people made in God's image, then we would want to do what we could to minimizize the harm.

I see caring about the well-being of human beings as part of my responsibility as a follower of Jesus.

Yes God could intervene. I accept the Biblical account of a global flood; God has intervened in the past. But God also allowed the atom bomb to be dropped on the Christian center of Japan.

I don't disagree with us being good stewards of what God gives us and that we should treat others as we ourselves would liked to be treated but I don't see where we are to focus on saving this temporal world as scripture says it is going to pass away.

So, we are to focus on things that are eternal and the greatest risk for any person living now and in the future is losing their soul.

[bible]Mark 8,36[/bible]

While we consider whether or not man is contributing to the ability of this earth to sustain life into the future, many around us are losing their soul.

Am I truly loving others if I am not first and foremost concerned about their soul. I keep asking myself this question and continually fight with those things that detract me from looking at life in this light. Jesus came to give us the gift of eternal life. How this earth ends up whether completely destroyed or completely made new matters not to us in light of eternity.

Also ultimately as Jim says, God is in ultimate control of this earth and we can trust He knows what He is doing regardless of what science concludes. Man's understandings are foolishness compared to God and although we are often impressed by what man has achieved, when science is not able to comprehend God with the faith of a small child, they are not very wise in God's eyes. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord.

Anyway, this is how I view this subject and wish I could say I was more active in pursuing the salvation of the lost to prove I truly care about them. My mind still needs more transforming to a Kingdom view.

JimFoxvog wrote:If the scientific concensus is true, then there are significant risks for a significant portion of humanity.

From all my study and investigation, I have found that the scientific consensus is that there is concern, not crisis. Those who turn the concern into a crisis are who I reject. Those who are turning it into a crisis instead of a concern are presenting political solutions, not scientific ones.

I see reason for us to be careful and respectful with our actions and affect on environment. I see no reason to pay governing bodies big money. History has shown they never solve anything, but just shift the mess to different areas.

I look at New Orleans and think we will see this happen in other places. They built below sea level and tried to push back nature. We can do that for a while, but often we will pay the price. Many have moved, never to return. I doubt New Orleans will ever return to what it was. I think that may be a good thing in the long term. Much better land and locations. Why spend billions when better places to live can be found 30 minutes away?

Hawaii confession lines
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/hawai ... t-the-door

Now, THIS is an example of how people behave when they are sincerely fearful for their lives.
No running around in private jets, buying lavish mansions, etc.

(i’m not Catholic, never been to Catholic confession.)

but, this paints the picture: on your knees, and no necessity to be directed to go there.

temporal1 wrote: Now, THIS is an example of how people behave when they are sincerely fearful for their lives.
No running around in private jets, buying lavish mansions, etc.

Yes, we care about the immediate much more than something that might be a generation away.

JimFoxvog wrote:

temporal1 wrote: Now, THIS is an example of how people behave when they are sincerely fearful for their lives.
No running around in private jets, buying lavish mansions, etc.

Yes, we care about the immediate much more than something that might be a generation away.

i would marginally agree, but, i could not wholeheartedly agree. esp as people grow older, thinking tends to become more balanced, broader perspective, thinking of future generations becomes more+more of a priority.

i was thinking more of Romans 14:11 “Every knee shall bow,”
http://biblehub.com/romans/14-11.htm

temporal1 wrote: i was thinking more of Romans 14:11 “Every knee shall bow,”
http://biblehub.com/romans/14-11.htm

How I long for that day!

Now they're saying that old clothing could become an environmental disaster. I wonder what the alarmists will recommend for that? Adam and Eve?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/29/ ... -too-high/

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (Nov. 29, 2017) — The rate at which Earth’s atmosphere is warming has not significantly accelerated over the past 23 years, according to research at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).

If you take away the transient cooling in 1983 and 1992 caused by two major volcanic eruptions in the preceding years, the remaining underlying warming trend in the bottom eight kilometers (almost five miles) of the atmosphere was 0.096 C (about 0.17° Fahrenheit) per decade between January 1979 and June 2017.

That was unexpectedly close to the 0.09 C warming trend found when similar research was published in 1994 with only 15 years of data, said Dr. John Christy, director of UAH’s Earth System Science Center.

This work might also indirectly affirm recent research showing the atmosphere is less sensitive to the warming effects of rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases than global climate models have suggested.

Robert wrote:https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/29/ ... -too-high/

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (Nov. 29, 2017) — The rate at which Earth’s atmosphere is warming has not significantly accelerated over the past 23 years, according to research at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).

If you take away the transient cooling in 1983 and 1992 caused by two major volcanic eruptions in the preceding years, the remaining underlying warming trend in the bottom eight kilometers (almost five miles) of the atmosphere was 0.096 C (about 0.17° Fahrenheit) per decade between January 1979 and June 2017.

That was unexpectedly close to the 0.09 C warming trend found when similar research was published in 1994 with only 15 years of data, said Dr. John Christy, director of UAH’s Earth System Science Center.

This work might also indirectly affirm recent research showing the atmosphere is less sensitive to the warming effects of rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases than global climate models have suggested.

It will be interesting to see if better climate modeling and less speculative projections result from the likely reduction of funding for "Global Warming" research by the government. I have heard from friends in a variety of fields (Oceanography, Biology, and yes, Climatology) that a lot of federal research grants and the federal agencies that administer them are quite biased toward funding studies that "prove" anthropogenic global warming. With the change in the administration we may see unbiased funding of real scientific research rather than funding to prove a favored theory.

Wayne in Maine wrote:

Robert wrote:That was unexpectedly close to the 0.09 C warming trend found when similar research was published in 1994 with only 15 years of data, said Dr. John Christy, director of UAH’s Earth System Science Center.

This work might also indirectly affirm recent research showing the atmosphere is less sensitive to the warming effects of rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases than global climate models have suggested.

It will be interesting to see if better climate modeling and less speculative projections result from the likely reduction of funding for "Global Warming" research by the government. I have heard from friends in a variety of fields (Oceanography, Biology, and yes, Climatology) that a lot of federal research grants and the federal agencies that administer them are quite biased toward funding studies that "prove" anthropogenic global warming. With the change in the administration we may see unbiased funding of real scientific research rather than funding to prove a favored theory.

Christy has no problem publishing his data, even though his group's results are often quite different from other scientists looking at the same data. But scientists just can't agree on what atmospheric temperature is according to satellite data, which is why surface data is generally considered more reliable.

Its great to have scientists like Christy and others hashing out their data, publishing papers that disagree with each other and trying to come to common ways of understanding the data. We don't need politicians like Donald Trump putting their thumbs on the scale. There's been some progress on that, but so far, scientists still don't agree on how to interpret this data. Ground temperature is considered more reliable.

As Carl Means put it:

I would have to say that the surface data seems that it’s more accurate, because a number of groups analyze the surface data, including some who set out to prove the other ones wrong, and they all get more or less the same answer.

The University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) team is a favorite of the denier camp, the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) team and other groups get quite different results looking at the same data. Here's why: even though some articles suggest satellites "just measure" the temperature of the air, that's not remotely true.

Wikipedia explains this clearly:

Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature. The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances. As a result, different groups that have analyzed the satellite data have produced differing temperature datasets. Among these are the UAH dataset prepared at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the RSS dataset prepared by Remote Sensing Systems.

The satellite time series is not homogeneous. It is constructed from a series of satellites with similar but not identical sensors. The sensors also deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for orbital drift and decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult.

Here are the various corrections that need to be made to convert the data they collect to temperatures, and there's significant disagreement about exactly how these corrections should be made.