The IPCC has held the same side of barn projection for 30 yrs, warming of 1.5-4.5C with CO2 doubling. Even these model projections have not been supported by measurement over the 30yr period.
The IPCC is projecting for 2100 (several projections, acc to how much GHGs we continue to emit), so we are not there yet.
Yea, what’s new?
This thread keeps going on and on, apparently trying to convince either non-believers of global warming, sceptics, or cautious watchers that global warming is accelerating at an unprecedented rate and we are doomed unless we take immediate action of some kind.The IPCC is projecting for 2100 (several projections, acc to how much GHGs we continue to emit), so we are not there yet.
As for year to year projection, even decade to decade, sometimes they are a bit lower and sometimes a bit higher than actual data that comes in.
However, again, you have to look at the long term picture over many decades, not just one year or one decade.
There was some discussion of why some earlier years’ projections were above the actual data. Several reasons were given – such as the much deeper and longer solar minimum and more heat going into the deeper ocean (due to various ocean dynamics).
They CANNOT predict the future of the intensity of the solar cycles, only that they will be happening fairly regularly, nor can they predict volcanic activity or the intensity of el ninos years in advance. Also, as mentioned, the climate figures used are based only on surface temps and do not include deeper ocean temps.
Furthermore, GW is based on the laws of physics, as well as evidence and data. It is not just some crazy idea scientists cooked up. They’ve known about the natural GH effect for 200 years, and oddly enough the sensitivity that Arrhenius came up with over 100 years ago has panned out to be fairly accurate – having made errors in both directions.
So one has to think more holistically and longer term.
And as for us non-scientists who are concerned about life on earth, the best policy is prudence – mitigating GW just in case it is happening and just in case it may do serious harms.
So we don’t need extreme level of match-ups and data. We just need to do the right thing.
I just don’t understand why people cannot grasp and follow prudence and why they reject science so out-of-hand…except that it is an “Inconvenient Truth.”
Now we’re getting somewhere. Those are actually the important questions (which I’ve been answering for several years on CAF).
The difference is that is caused by nature, while the global warming that’s happening now is caused by people. Not sure if our immortal souls are in jeopardy, but denial and putting forth efforts to dissuade others from mitigating may be more serious sins.
I don’t know what it’s caused by, or even if it is moving in an irreversible direction or whether it is simply a larger cycle unknown due to our recent weather recording capabilities. There are many theories.
Than abortion? I don’t think so.
But it seemed you could stomach voting for Clinton who would have stood by and advanced abortion. That not only threatens someone in the future, but threatens and kills them today. Hypocrisy much?
If it’s reasonable. Most of what I have heard and seen is completely unreasonable, even gravely immoral or evil, much of it is fear mongering.
The Gospel of Matthew 8:24-27:
I hope this has helped
It is a distortion of the truth to imply that the various theories are all held by equally reputable authorities. This is a scientific question. Listen to those who have made the study of science their career. Then you will know.
That, too, it just a theory. There are also theories that say that renewable energy means can lead to a more prosperous and comfortable life. Those that warn of dire consequences of a move to renewable energy are worse fear mongers than those who warn of dire consequences of global warming.
It was quite clear that Lynn meant that leading others to ignore global warming might be a more serious sin than merely ignoring global warming yourself. This has nothing to do with abortion.
I have great respect for C.S. Lewis as a philosopher, author, and Christian moralist. But there are always instances where great men in one field venture too far into fields not their own. I am reminded of a little piece written by the great G.K.Chesterton where he dismissed the claims of the dangers of smoking tobacco. Neither he nor others of his time knew what scientists know now about this subject. Similarly, neither C.S. Lewis now others of his time really understood the implications of nuclear war. I suspect if C.S. Lewis were living today and knew what we all know now about this issue, he would have quite a different view.
Best to follow the Holy Fathers’ advice over the past 26 years and mitigate climate change – they all at least accepted what the scientists have been saying, and our current pope has graduate education in science. They are not dumb bunnies.
I agree that having an abortion is a worse sin, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive to reduce our other sins.
Clinton said she is for making abortion safe, legal, and rare. Since she is my same age I understand where she’s coming from, tho I do disagree and think we should make it illegal after we’ve made some changes to our society.
Please stop these large images. They make the thread extremely difficult to read.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=187801
Good point. But now that you have quoted that large picture again, this page of responses is similarly messed up. Can you still edit this post and remove the picture in the quote?
This has been said many times, but it has to be realized that the subsidies involved in this particular case simply cannot be afforded to every citizen.
You should distinguish between those who believe MMGW is real from those who are proposing solutions to combat it. There is a lot of overlap, I suppose, but they really are separate questions. Disagreement over the second question should not imply dismissal of the first question.
And in fact they do.
It is inconvenient to accept that something you have depended on in cheap supply may have to cost more. That could make people skeptical.
Except that such a goal does not make sense because there does not seem to be much of a benefit to those that are proposing limitations. I have heard the “power for power’s sake” arguments before, but they are just not compelling. If people are doing things for a hidden agenda, that agenda is usually something that gives them an objective advantage - usually financial. I see no such motivation for “faking” global warming. On the other hand, I see the tremendous potential financial motivation for denying global warming. If we are going to hypothesize hidden agendas, let’s be fair in looking at both sides.
It has not really gone away. It has been pushed down the road by the discovery of more extreme methods of recovery, such as fracking and tar sands extraction.
You imply the existence of one constant goal without giving a reason why anyone would want to strive toward that goal.
I’m not saying all people have the motivation of making profit from government actions to decrease or at least punish fossil fuel use, but some certainly do. A lot of government money goes into alternative energies, without which those producers could not continue. And, of course, there is the Al Gore sale of credits which the current administration would impose on the whole U.S. if it could, for the benefit of “credit generators” in other countries.
That’s not as large as a graph I put up (I just couldn’t find a smaller one and did feel bad about it though).
We did not receive subsidies for anything we did before 2002 and were able to reduce our GHGs by about one-third – thereby reducing the subsidies we would have received for fossil fuel and nuclear energy use.
I’m not a scientist either, but some 40 yrs ago I came across “catastrophe theory,” which I think is being used in both the social and natural sciences (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory). The idea is that there can be some slowly increasing factor that when it reaches a certain critical point can tip the system into a different state very rapidly.
I keep saying it because, with all due respect, you keep bringing it up. Not everyone who sees the current posts viewed the ones a few years back when it turned out the total of subsidies, credits, etc to do all of that was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It shouldn’t be made to seem easier or less expensive than it is. Nor is it likely the government can afford to do the same for every Jack and Jill in the country.