Global Warning/Climate Change

Things that are not part of politics happening presently and how we approach or address it as Anabaptists.
User avatar
JimFoxvog
Posts: 2891
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2016 10:56 pm
Location: Northern Illinois
Affiliation: MCUSA

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by JimFoxvog »

Robert wrote:
JimFoxvog wrote:Here's a summary of one of the leading opponents of the theory of human caused climate change, with responses: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ics-really The summary:
Then it deals with the merits of the arguments, mostly by links. If this is an issue of interest, take time to look up the links.
I ran down multiple links and they were all just articles in the guardian, which is known to be way left leaning. I found little except "consensus" option presented. They used a chart very similar to the one I posted to say the predictions were very accurate. I saw no evidence they were more accurate than what I presented, just someone saying they were. I was disappointed.
Most of the links are to Skeptical Science. Then you have to follow their links to see where the information is coming from.
0 x
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 8522
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Robert »

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opin ... ainty.html
Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.

None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
RZehr
Posts: 7026
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:42 am
Affiliation: Cons. Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by RZehr »

Sudsy wrote: I have always wondered just how YEC deniers will react if proof of a young earth is proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Will they be like the 'flat earth' group. And likely some think they are already there.
You're welcome. ;)
0 x
Neto
Posts: 4577
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Holmes County, Ohio
Affiliation: Gospel Haven

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Neto »

My home staters are having some real global warming right now in the panhandle (Oklahoma). [NOT!]
0 x
Congregation: Gospel Haven Mennonite Fellowship, Benton, Ohio (Holmes Co.) a split from Beachy-Amish Mennonite.
Personal heritage & general theological viewpoint: conservative Mennonite Brethren.
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 8522
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Robert »

0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
User avatar
Robert
Site Janitor
Posts: 8522
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 pm
Affiliation: Anabaptist

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Robert »

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9716327152
The Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is often described as a region with one of the largest warming trends on Earth since the 1950s, based on the temperature trend of 0.54 °C/decade during 1951–2011 recorded at Faraday/Vernadsky station. Accordingly, most works describing the evolution of the natural systems in the AP region cite this extreme trend as the underlying cause of their observed changes. However, a recent analysis (Turner et al., 2016) has shown that the regionally stacked temperature record for the last three decades has shifted from a warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of − 0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014. While that study focuses on the period 1979–2014, averaging the data over the entire AP region, we here update and re-assess the spatially-distributed temperature trends and inter-decadal variability from 1950 to 2015, using data from ten stations distributed across the AP region. We show that Faraday/Vernadsky warming trend is an extreme case, circa twice those of the long-term records from other parts of the northern AP. Our results also indicate that the cooling initiated in 1998/1999 has been most significant in the N and NE of the AP and the South Shetland Islands (> 0.5 °C between the two last decades), modest in the Orkney Islands, and absent in the SW of the AP. This recent cooling has already impacted the cryosphere in the northern AP, including slow-down of glacier recession, a shift to surface mass gains of the peripheral glacier and a thinning of the active layer of permafrost in northern AP islands.
0 x
Try hard not to offend. Try harder not to be offended.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are not after you.
I think I am funnier than I really am.
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23821
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Josh »

Sudsy wrote:I have always wondered just how YECs will react if proof of a much older earth is proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Will they be like the 'flat earth' group. And likely some think they are already there.
That's why we should not justify our spiritual belief with a "scientific" basis. If we try to do that, it shows our real belief is in science and men, not faith.
0 x
Soloist
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:49 pm
Affiliation: CM Seeker

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Soloist »

maybe this was mentioned somewhere in one of these massive posts... Has there been any actual studies showing a carbon uptake cap on properly acclimated plants? Short term studies show increased output from the carbon cycle, and acclimated plants show decreased output and increased uptake on the carbon cycle creating uncertainties and from one study I glanced at the "cap" of carbon sequestration in plants is a assumed theory. Has it actually been tested?
0 x
Soloist, but I hate singing alone
Soloist, but my wife posts with me
Soloist, but I believe in community
Soloist, but I want God in the pilot seat
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

Robert wrote:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9716327152
The Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is often described as a region with one of the largest warming trends on Earth since the 1950s, based on the temperature trend of 0.54 °C/decade during 1951–2011 recorded at Faraday/Vernadsky station. Accordingly, most works describing the evolution of the natural systems in the AP region cite this extreme trend as the underlying cause of their observed changes. However, a recent analysis (Turner et al., 2016) has shown that the regionally stacked temperature record for the last three decades has shifted from a warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of − 0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014. While that study focuses on the period 1979–2014, averaging the data over the entire AP region, we here update and re-assess the spatially-distributed temperature trends and inter-decadal variability from 1950 to 2015, using data from ten stations distributed across the AP region. We show that Faraday/Vernadsky warming trend is an extreme case, circa twice those of the long-term records from other parts of the northern AP. Our results also indicate that the cooling initiated in 1998/1999 has been most significant in the N and NE of the AP and the South Shetland Islands (> 0.5 °C between the two last decades), modest in the Orkney Islands, and absent in the SW of the AP. This recent cooling has already impacted the cryosphere in the northern AP, including slow-down of glacier recession, a shift to surface mass gains of the peripheral glacier and a thinning of the active layer of permafrost in northern AP islands.
The conclusions are not available on this link - where can I read the paper to see what the authors conclude? What position do the authors take on global warming?
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14439
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Global Warning/Climate Change

Post by Bootstrap »

Robert wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opin ... ainty.html
Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.

None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.
This is a great article. But what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The certainty that Glenn Beck claims as an entertainer is way beyond what a scientist would claim or what the IPCC claims. As the above article points out:
As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, “I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.” The science was generally scrupulous. The boosters who claimed its authority weren’t.
That article points to this one, which provides a more complete quote:
I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation or strengthen the faltering 1992 climate change treaty. Mind you, there was usually a much bigger gap between the science and the views of industry supporters defending fossil fuels or fighting environmental regulations or taxes. But to me, the monumental nature of the task facing those trying to move the world away from fossil fuels called for extra attention to detail.
Revkin's article suggests that this issue has become so politically charged that we might do best to avoid discussing it directl - after all, we mostly agree on many of the things we need to do to take care of the planet.
And the more time I’ve spent focusing on that sobering behavioral research, the more I’m realizing that it points to distinct opportunities to make progress on climate-smart energy steps and policies, which can create more resilient communities. Paradoxically, though, in some instances this would require something odd: not talking about global warming at all. Most powerfully, a recent nationwide analysis by researchers at Yale and Utah State University found that although asking questions about global warming reveals muted passions on both ends of America’s deeply polarized political map, asking different questions can mute the differences. For example, both red and blue voters strongly support investing in more research on renewable energy sources and regulating carbon dioxide as a power plant pollutant.

There are plenty of other examples across the board. There are libertarians who crave the taste of energy independence that comes with a rooftop solar panel. There are liberals who hate the idea that taxpayers should pay the bill when people who build repeatedly in flood zones get reimbursed under federal insurance policies that don’t reflect the real risk.

And as that national survey showed, there is widespread support for invigorating this country’s lagging investments in basic sciences related to better battery technology or solar panels, more efficient vehicles and electrical grids, and possibly even a new generation of nuclear plants. It’s time: American investment in basic research in energy-related sciences has been a dribble for decades compared to the money poured into science in other areas, such as defense and homeland security or the cancer fight.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
Post Reply