Global Warning/Climate Change

[Bootstrap]

Consensus is a political concept, it is NOT a scientific concept.

Consensus means agreement. When scientific associations pretty much all agree that something has been proven, that tells you something. Scientists know how to evaluate scientific evidence. That includes these 18 American scientific associations, these 200+ international scientific associations, the IPPC, and the vast majority of university programs.

What alternative do you propose? Do you believe that anything is ever scientifically proven? How can people know if something has been proven? For almost any scientific question, I look at comprehensive literature reviews, what the scientific associations say, etc. How do you approach this? How do you figure out what mainstream scientists believe about a subject? How can two people agree on that?

[Robert]

BTW< I am aware of NO legitimate growing evidence that shows hurricanes are growing in strength because of warming.

Here is a good starting point:

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warmin ... urricanes/

I don't think this is a proven fact, merely that there is increasing evidence it may be true, and it makes sense given the basic physics. On the other hand, it certainly has not been proven false, at least in the things I have read.

See, this just goes to prove you do not look into or read what I post. This is the EXACT link I posted one page back.

I pretty much assumed you ignored anything I presented. Now I know you do.

I feel comfortable with ignoring anything you post from here forward.

[ohio jones]

Consensus is a political concept, it is NOT a scientific concept.

Consensus means agreement. When scientific associations pretty much all agree that something has been proven, that tells you something.

Scientific consensus in the 15th century: Alchemy
Scientific consensus in the 16th century: Geocentric solar system
Scientific consensus in the 17th century: Spontaneous generation
Scientific consensus in the 18th century: Phlogiston combustion
Scientific consensus in the 19th century: Luminiferous aether

Pretty much every scientific breakthrough is the result of someone questioning consensus, rather than accepting it. Looking at agreement among scientific associations does tell you something, but not necessarily about the way the universe actually works.

[Valerie]

Bottom line: We're quite certain that we are changing our environment and this leads to global warming. I think we are also quite certain that at least 50% of recent global warming is due to human activity.

We're not sure if we are doing things that will have devastating consequences or not, we are still gathering data on that, and it seems reasonably likely.

If we want to do something about that, it requires planning and will cost something. If we don't, we may find that it's too late.

So where is God in all of this? Is it a reaping what we have sown, even if we were doing it in ignorance? I know this will sound ridiculous to use the Amish as an example, but here are a people who take God serious about with food and clothes to be content- perhaps to an extreme that most on MN wouldn't agree with- but yet when they talk about 'our footprint' it is hard to deny the Amish have not contributed to all this for the most part- by being content with so much less. This is something I ponder when I consider the root cause- even if we didn't realize it-
So if there is global warming, and God is sovereign, where is He in all this and what might He want us to consider?

Except that if everyone farmed like the most conservative of the Amish do we would not be feeding a hungry world at least not for the prices that food can be bought for now. Now if we all farmed like the Hutturites do, that may be a different story.

Okay BUT- 2 points- one is, IF (and I lean towards not blaming global warming or believing scientists very much on many issues) Global Warming is to be blamed for the starvation so vast in Africa (which was one of my son's points) then what is the answer regarding Africa's situation? I brought up with him how God provided, when Egypt was experiencing the 7 year drought during Joseph's time there- and we know how that played out- but is Global Warming the cause of Africa's drought and famine?

2nd point- if we all continued to be content with what we had before the industrial revolution (which is why I brought up the Amish) would we have this (possible) problem with Global Warming at all? Is this a consequence for not living in contentment and a reaping what we have sown?

[Valerie]

Has anyone here seen Al Gore's movie and drawn any conclusions because of it?

I saw the first one. I have not seen the second. I don't usually draw conclusions based on movies and videos, it's too hard to quickly verify the facts, and they tend to tug on your emotions. When I do, I usually write down the claims and check them later.

My son seems to believe that global warming is the cause of many starving in Africa- (of course this is the cliff note of his talk with me)
True? False?

How does one know WHO is telling the truth in all this?

In this case, "truth" means scientific evidence.

Thanks Boot- I don't necessarily feel a 'trust' for Al Gore-
Nor a trust in science (not that I don't in 'some' areas)
I'm a young earth believer and do not believe that people are 'born' homosexual- or a gene is present that makes one an alcoholic- these kinds of things cause me to mistrust science to begin with I admit-however it is difficult for me to have a dialogue with people if I'm totally misinformed, and so my son will classify me with 'the blind' to these global warming issues- as many on the left seem to do-so was willing to watch to learn I guess but probably with the assumption that I will 1) not get a lot of it and 2) assume it is deception anyways

[Valerie]

Consensus is a political concept, it is NOT a scientific concept.

Consensus means agreement. When scientific associations pretty much all agree that something has been proven, that tells you something.

Scientific consensus in the 15th century: Alchemy
Scientific consensus in the 16th century: Geocentric solar system
Scientific consensus in the 17th century: Spontaneous generation
Scientific consensus in the 18th century: Phlogiston combustion
Scientific consensus in the 19th century: Luminiferous aether

Pretty much every scientific breakthrough is the result of someone questioning consensus, rather than accepting it. Looking at agreement among scientific associations does tell you something, but not necessarily about the way the universe actually works.

Interesting!!

[Wayne in Maine]

Michael Crichton delivered a speech at Cal Tech on the question of "Scientific Consensus" ALIENS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING.

[Wayne in Maine]

Consensus is a political concept, it is NOT a scientific concept.

Consensus means agreement. When scientific associations pretty much all agree that something has been proven, that tells you something. Scientists know how to evaluate scientific evidence. That includes these 18 American scientific associations, these 200+ international scientific associations, the IPPC, and the vast majority of university programs.

What alternative do you propose? Do you believe that anything is ever scientifically proven? How can people know if something has been proven? For almost any scientific question, I look at comprehensive literature reviews, what the scientific associations say, etc. How do you approach this? How do you figure out what mainstream scientists believe about a subject? How can two people agree on that?

I'm actually surprised that you, an educated person working in technology, understands so little about what science is.

To steal and paraphrase a quote: "Science is the business of testing theories with measured data from the outside world." Consensus simply has no role in this process. The data either establishes the hypothesis or it does not.

Climate science involves creating mathematical models (an EXTREMELY difficult and imprecise process) which hypothetically predict certain phenomena when certain variables are altered. One cannot easily test these models which predict events 100 years in the future, though one can test these models on real sets of data from the past to see if the results over recent times are consistent with the models. Few modern climate models actually produce temperatures (let alone other results) that have been measured over the past couple of decades without these measurements being "adjusted" --- to fit the models, or as one climatologists put it "to hide the decline". That is not science, in spite of the politically popular consensus that human produces Carbon Dioxide is driving global atmospheric temperatures higher.

The bottom line is this: The models on which politicians are being forced to make policy have not been verified by actual measurements, on the contrary, they have been found to be deficient. This is not "denial", this is the opposite, it is acceptance and recognition of facts.

[appleman2006]

Okay BUT- 2 points- one is, IF (and I lean towards not blaming global warming or believing scientists very much on many issues) Global Warming is to be blamed for the starvation so vast in Africa (which was one of my son's points) then what is the answer regarding Africa's situation? I brought up with him how God provided, when Egypt was experiencing the 7 year drought during Joseph's time there- and we know how that played out- but is Global Warming the cause of Africa's drought and famine?

2nd point- if we all continued to be content with what we had before the industrial revolution (which is why I brought up the Amish) would we have this (possible) problem with Global Warming at all? Is this a consequence for not living in contentment and a reaping what we have sown?

I understand the point you are trying to make. I just do not agree with it. For one thing famine in different parts of the world is nothing new and to blame it on man caused carbon emissions is a stretch by any scientist's standards. (see some of Wayne's recent posts)

And yes it is true that most Amish especially those that live very primitively leave a smaller footprint so to speak but to imply that if every farmer farmed that way we would have less hungry people simply misses many of the facts that have become part of our ability to feed a huge world population. There are many Amish that are very productive in their farming methods BTW but most of them are using many modern day methods and are relying on modern transportation and logistic methods to get their food to market. The fact is that even they would not be as effective in feeding the world were it not for the modern infrastructure around them.
Old Mcdonald's farm using 200 year old technology simply would not feed the world today. It might help to feed you on a good year if you happen to live next to someone that still farms like this and he has a good year where his garden produces more than what his family needs. Otherwise forget about it.

[Bootstrap]

Consensus means agreement. When scientific associations pretty much all agree that something has been proven, that tells you something. Scientists know how to evaluate scientific evidence. That includes these 18 American scientific associations, these 200+ international scientific associations, the IPPC, and the vast majority of university programs.

What alternative do you propose? Do you believe that anything is ever scientifically proven? How can people know if something has been proven? For almost any scientific question, I look at comprehensive literature reviews, what the scientific associations say, etc. How do you approach this? How do you figure out what mainstream scientists believe about a subject? How can two people agree on that?

I'm actually surprised that you, an educated person working in technology, understands so little about what science is.

Wayne, I really do think you are plainly wrong about the role of consensus in science. If you have such superior knowledge, please demonstrate that knowledge with answers, not with insults.

Building consensus and the process of coming to agreement is a huge part of what science is. This is the kind of thing you study in history of science or philosophy of science - how do the scientists in a field become convinced that something is true and communicate that to the public?

To steal and paraphrase a quote: "Science is the business of testing theories with measured data from the outside world." Consensus simply has no role in this process. The data either establishes the hypothesis or it does not.

Who decides if it established the hypothesis or not?

Consensus is the result of testing theories with measured data, looking at results from a wide range of experiments, and deciding which theories have been proven based on the data. Scientists look at the data and make a judgement. If there is widespread agreement that the theory has been proven, then the theory is accepted. People are involved in that process, which needs to be transparent - disclosing the data, funding sources, potential conflicts of interest, and the way that decisions are made.

When science has ramifications for policy making, scientists form groups like scientific associations to build consensus about what the science says. They do to make it easier for policy makers to sort out the crackpots from mainstream science, because some people keep loudly proclaiming the same thing long after it has been disproven.

Climate science involves creating mathematical models which hypothetically predict phenomena when certain variables are altered. One cannot easily test these models which predict events 100 years in the future, though one can test these models on real sets of data from the past to see if the results over recent times are consistent with the models.

Right. And of course, you can then track performance of these models over time.

Few modern climate models actually produce temperatures (let alone other results) that have been measured over the past couple of decades without these measurements being "adjusted" --- to fit the models, or as one climatologists put it "to hide the decline". That is not science, in spite of the politically popular consensus that human produces Carbon Dioxide is driving global atmospheric temperatures higher.

Ah, now we're starting to discuss the science!

Actually, I think the models have done well, and predictions by skeptics that we were entering a phase of cooling were simply wrong.

GlobalTemp.png (39.91 KiB) Viewed 662 times

This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. Sixteen of the 17 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998. The year 2016 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Also, I think you are using "adjusted" and "hide the decline" out of context in a way that is misleading, implying that someone is fudging data. "Hide the decline" has become a slogan for skeptics, who mostly have no idea what the phrase means or where it came from. It is not about a decline in global temperature, it is about a decline in tree growth at that happens at high-latitudes which makes tree-ring measurements inaccurate.

This is precisely the kind of thing that scientific associations and the IPPC have studied in depth, and they have reached different conclusions than you do.

The bottom line is this: The models on which politicians are being forced to make policy have not been verified by actual measurements, on the contrary, they have been found to be deficient. This is not "denial", this is the opposite, it is acceptance and recognition of facts.

"Have been found to be deficient" by whom? When scientific associations look at them, they endorse the models. When the IPPC conducts a very transparent literature review of every single published article - including the articles published by people who do not believe in global warming - they endorse the models.

So which scientists are you asking me to trust more than these scientists, and why? What process do they use to reach consensus? What kinds of conflicts of interest do they have - do they work as lobbyists, for instance? These are people too, how do they reach their decisions?