Global Warning/Climate Change

[Sudsy]

Many times what science believed to be true and had all kinds of evidence they thought proved they were right, turned out to be wrong. So, what is the point of studying the views of these fallible scientists and drawing an opinion on who is right ? Or is this more of a competitive sport striving to be the winner and sometimes playing the game in an unsportsman like manner ?

This forum called 'Current Events' is to be about how Anabaptists approach this subject. I don't see where there is any distinction in how an Anabaptist approaches this subject from any non-Anabaptist nor little from how an unbeliever might. Or am I not getting what the intent was for this forum called 'Current Events' ?

I do think the scriptures give us some good instruction on how to view and respond to current events.

[Robert]

But why is this entire topic so important to you?

I enjoy it and Bigfoot too. I still look for Bigfoot as I drive down the road. Just a fun thing to do.

I enjoy the dynamics of climate. It satisfies my scientific side. I was supposed to be a physicist. I disappointed a multiple people not following that path.

[Neto]

I found this article interesting, in that they say their study shows human agricultural activity in South America (the Amazon) twice as far back as in Europe. (In their dating methods, 4,000 years in the Amazon, as compared to 2,000 for Europe.)

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57273664

[Josh]

It might be interesting to objectively assess how politicised science journals are (as Bootstrap wrote earlier that he thinks the popular peer reviewed science journals are the final authority on scientific facts).

Go take a look at the headlines in the latest edition of Nature.

[Soloist]

It might be interesting to objectively assess how politicised science journals are (as Bootstrap wrote earlier that he thinks the popular peer reviewed science journals are the final authority on scientific facts).

Go take a look at the headlines in the latest edition of Nature.

Hundreds of gibberish papers still lurk in the scientific literature
Nonsensical research papers generated by a computer program are still popping up in the scientific literature many years after the problem was first seen, a study has revealed1. Some publishers have told Nature they will take down the papers, which could result in more than 200 retractions.

The issue began in 2005, when three PhD students created paper-generating software called SCIgen for “maximum amusement”, and to show that some conferences would accept meaningless papers. The program cobbles together words to generate research articles with random titles, text and charts, easily spotted as gibberish by a human reader. It is free to download, and anyone can use it.

The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science
Some publishers say they are battling industrialized cheating. A Nature analysis examines the 'paper mill' problem — and how editors are trying to cope.

Daily briefing: How the divisive ‘lab leak’ debate is hurting science
Discussions about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 must focus on the evidence, say scientists.

Ancient seeds spill secrets about the evolution of flowering plants
The origin and rapid diversification of flowering plants is a long-standing “abominable mystery”, as Charles Darwin put it. Part of the puzzle – the origin of the protective covering of flowering-plant seeds – is nearing resolution.

[Ken]

It might be interesting to objectively assess how politicised science journals are (as Bootstrap wrote earlier that he thinks the popular peer reviewed science journals are the final authority on scientific facts).

Go take a look at the headlines in the latest edition of Nature.

Okay.....I did as you asked. Here are the current headlines from today:



And here is the current list of research notes and peer-reviewed research articles currently under publication

[gcdonner]

Where I live in Ohio is basically impervious to natural disasters.

No floods, tornadoes, blizzards, or droughts? Must be nice.

It is strictly because of the AMISH presence...

[JimFoxvog]

For scientific information, I like scientific journals and scientific associations, I think they know how to do science.

These same structures give us non-binary genders, abortion on demand, and several other things I disagree with. Why should I hold their climate research to a higher standard than i do these other topics?

Not really. I don't think non-binary genders is a scientific thing. People still have XY or XX chromosomes. Abortion on demand is also not a scientific thing. The science has not changed.

Exactly right, Boot. I can't catch the connection between science and views on gender or abortion.

[RZehr]

Seems like I remember hearing how ignorant people were for denying global warming based on regional, record cold snaps. Yet, here we are, seeing the opposite people doing the same thing with our current regional, record heat wave in the PNW, saying this is a result of global warming.

[Ken]

Seems like I remember hearing how ignorant people were for denying global warming based on regional, record cold snaps. Yet, here we are, seeing the opposite people doing the same thing with our current regional, record heat wave in the PNW, saying this is a result of global warming.

I don't think any legitimate climate scientists would claim that these sorts of localized weather phenomenon like heat waves are caused by climate change. Although they would probably allow that when heat waves, hurricanes, etc. do occur they can be made more severe by climate change and a warming planet. So maybe the heat wave is a degree or two hotter than it would have otherwise been.

There is a difference between weather, which is the day-to-day temperature and rainfall. And climate, which is the long-term average temperatures and precipitation. One of the main predictions of climate scientists is that longstanding climate patterns will be disrupted. Weather is all about the distribution of heat and moisture around the globe from prevailing wind and ocean currents. If prevailing wind and ocean currents change it will likely have unpredictable effects, with some areas getting hotter, other areas colder, and some areas getting wetter and others drier. While the overall average temperature of the planet increases.

One big prediction is that climate change could disrupt the Gulf Stream which currently distributes heat from the Caribbean and US Gulf Coast to Europe. If that happens then Europe could actually get colder while the Gulf Coast gets hotter, even while average worldwide temperatures increase. There has been a lot written about this: https://www.livescience.com/gulf-stream ... hange.html