I don’t imagine this has changed in six years or will in the next sixty or six hundred. It will just intensify. AGW should cease by the end of the century and start to come down a couple after that, getting back to pre-fossil fuel levels by 2400. That’s if we go flat out with nuclear, wind and solar to provide equality of outcome aka justice and righteousness. It’s that spiritual. Humanity will still be maximally urbanized with some move back to the re-greening deserts to maintain the PV and robot tractors.
True. Our armed forces consider climate change to be a threat multiplier, increasing the chances for political instability and violence in an already troubled world.
1 Like
I like your tag line re importance of expressing faith in love.
I wish the wide-spread fear about AGW was better supported by real-life data. I think many people have no idea that current global average temp is closer to that of 2013-14 than it is to showing evidence of continued warming. While CO2 is now well-established as an important component of the life-giving greenhouse effect, and increased CO2 will add to some warming, it is questionable just how big that added effect is and may not be nearly as strong as currently projected by IPCC.
I’m thinking that a faith perspective would be first concerned with knowing the truth of the matter and then dealing with the justice that flows from there. For example, if CO2 is not nearly as strong of a driver of warming as claimed, then justice and equality may well be served by continued use of all kinds of energy, including fossil fuels to help under-developed countries prosper. Afterall, UN data shows very clearly just how much progress has already been made in recent decades with respect to improved education and health-care, along with reduced poverty. No doubt there is much work to do, but let’s not mis-label the progress that has already been made as if it was regression. And a lot of that progress is connected with the low cost, versatile, high-density, portable and valuable fossil fuels that can reach remote communities replacing dung, wood, etc.
I’d say that one of the problems with climate is the time-scale. Unlike the car industry, that can change dramatically in a decade or so, it takes much longer to see even a small change in the climate pattern. This is where I see hesitation coming from - not so much a lust of short-term profits, but rather a deep concern for getting at the truth of the matter.
In particular, we hear that the sun could not have given us any of the unusual warming at the end of the 20th century. However, a similar warming period that occurred in the first part of the 20th century, is almost completely attributed to solar energy. And, when you check the records around solar energy, you find that the accumulated solar energy input was actually higher for the period surrounding the warming in the latter part of the century, compared with the solar input for the early warming. I’d say that this tells us the sun would be a cause of just as much warming (maybe a little more) at the end of the century as it was in the first part of the century. And now, with solar energy at a low point, global temps are showing a tendency to resist further warming. In case you didn’t notice, the latest global temps are closer to those of 2013&14 than they are to showing evidence of continued warming.
It seems to me that we have sufficient data to wonder what is really driving warming and not just accept a consensus report as a substitute for proper science. The trouble is that climate matters take so long to confirm.
Have we seen the start of a change in the warming pattern dating back to the the ‘warming hiatus’? Looking at the solar energy record you could easily see such a possibility. After 7 consecutive above average solar cycles that continued throughout the last half of the last century - the last of those solar cycles peaked around 2002 - the latest solar cycle peak (circ 2014) was the lowest in more than 100 years and the forecast for the peak of the present solar cycle is for another below average energy input giving us the first back-to-back solar cycle lows in more than 180 years. We have such weak data from 180 years ago that I don’t think we can really trust it, but it certainly makes me wonder what will happen over the next few years - next solar cycle peak expected circ 2025. Will continuing increase in atmospheric CO2 level overwhelm all natural factors and give us a return to severe warming, or will we confirm evidence of stronger than conventional assessment impact from solar energy fluctuation? Many people think we already know the answer to this. I’m not so sure and encourage us all to be open and objective in assessing the data over the next few years.
We don’t have years. There is more than enough data and has been for decades. I studied this at university in the early 70s. The disintegration of Syria over a decade ago was driven by AGW. Not Milankovitch. There is nothing but evidence but there can never be enough for some cognitive biases.
‘We don’t have years’ … only IF strong CO2-driven agw is true. Presuming to know the full answer before we even have all the data is not open, nor objective. Declaring roughly the same amount of heat input a driver of significant warming in one period of time and then allowing it no impact of warming in another period of time is simply unsupportable. Don’t go away. The next few years will be speaking to us.
We definitely have enough information to be concerned about increasing CO2 levels - enough to be taking some action to curtail, as a pro-active insurance, and possibly eliminate, emissions if it proves necessary, but let’s not get into assuming that just because a region has had some effect from the unusual warming at the end of the last century and, indeed, throughout the last century, that it was necessarily caused by increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
I go with the cognitive bias of the 98% of relevant scientists. What’s yours that overrules ours?
1 Like
Your wish has been granted. There is ample evidence from scientists.
2 Likes
I would urge people to read Steve Koonin’s new book “Uncertain”. Koonin was appointed Undersecretary for Energy Research by President Obama following ten years as Provost at Cal Tech. Climate change is “forever”. There was the medieval warm period when the Vikings were growing grapes in Greenland, followed by the little ice age when Hans Brinker was skating on the frozen canals in Holland and Joshua Turner was painting scenes with the Themes frozen over in London. As long as data are only shown back to 1880, there is a steady rise in temperature…except for a period of lowering temperatures between 1940 and 1970. The rise since 1880 is about 1 degree C. The scientific question remains, “how much of that is caused by human activity?” I have seen at least two recent papers that suggest that the effect of CO2 is “saturated”, meaning where there is 400 ppm or 800 ppm makes no difference. As at the start, 'Uncertain" is the word. Richard Feynmann once stated that Religion is all about faith, science is about doubt.
It seems to be a book by a contrarian who doesn’t have a degree in atmospheric science/climate science.
1 Like
There is plenty of evidence about global warming and its effects, but preciously little to properly quantify the effect of increasing CO2. The only reason we are even have this conversation is because a few scientists declared that the same amount of solar energy in one 42 year time-span could not possibly contribute the same amount of warming as a previous 42 year time-span. The great ‘CO2 is the cause of global warming’ stems from a proclamation that the sun couldn’t have done it, with no real evidence to back that up. So, let’s stay focused on providing proper evidence.
Nice contribution.
I would add that while religion is differentiated by faith, it is faith that drives a desire to do the right things and seek the truth in all matters.
It is ok to be critical if there is an alternative explanation that can explain the observed facts as well as the prevailing explanation.
I’m not an expert but my readings of the climate change suggest that the current explanation of climate warming explains the observed facts well and has made predictions that have proven to be fairly accurate. Computer models have sometimes given too conservative predictions for the consequences of warming but making the climate models more realistic have improved the accuracy of estimates. I do not know any alternative explanation that would explain the facts equally well. That is the reason why the vast majority (>>95%) of scientists agree that emissions of CO2 and comparable stuff are a very likely cause of the current climate change.
The causes of climate warming are discussed in another thread, so there is no reason to have the same debate here. No matter what is causing the ongoing warming, it has consequences that lead to ‘the great climate migration’.
The ‘wait and see’ approach is fully, exactly analogous to the approach to civil rights, social justice, the righteousness of God, by southern white Christians in the early 60s. It is the same issue in fact. Injustice, inequality, unrighteousness ennobled by faith is at the heart of AGW. Now is the time.
Part of the BioLogos ethic is to avoid “labeling” people with words like “contrarian”. As an excuse to ignore what they say. If you would like to read something from a climate scientist, here is a link to Judith Curry’s web site. Her research is in atmospheric thermodynamics and clouds. It is clouds that have been the biggest uncertainty for climate models for well over half century.
Very true. I believe that was the gist of Martin Luther King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” That is to say, we can’t wait.
1 Like
But BioLogos is also supposed to promote good science. They already, in my opinion, go too far in granting a free platform for people to promote junk science.
1 Like
You will find that BioLogos has the same discussions in multiple threads, for a variety of reasons.
1 Like
William. Curry is right about Extinction Rebellion. They seriously undermine the credibility of environmentalism, of being God’s stewards, dressing and keeping the Earth with equality of outcome for all. I’m all for bringing everyone up to our level and making our level level and sustainable, because we’re all damned if we don’t. Even the plutocrats.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.