Catholic Climate Movement

[lynnvinc]

The usual formulation includes “CO2 levels are rising due to combustion of fossil fuels”

But that’s not the only human contribution to atmospheric carbon. There are other ones, big ones. But nobody in the MMGW community ever pays any attention to them.

You are simply wrong in that. Hansen has spoken a lot about methane emissions, and the Bush administration even brought him in to some meetings on that.

Also others do point out land use issues. For some general background on this see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_use,_land-use_change_and_forestry

And some others point out how carbon is being released from melting permafrost and ocean clathrates.

However, for people who don’t own a lot of land as you do, there is not much they can do about land use – except maybe plant more trees in their yard (which could also improve their property value and keep them cooler).

So for most of us it is a matter of reducing our CO2 emissions thru energy/resource conservation/efficiency and going on alt energy when feasible.

I’m thinking that halting oil, coal, and gas extraction from public lands might be a good idea, since such extraction in itself (aside from combustion) would contribute to climate change, esp mountaintop removal.

 

[vz71]

My point was that after the 1960s the tree ring proxy was not useful – falling well below the instrumental data (though it had been tracking it fairly well earlier) – and that might be…

So they use the data until it no longer supports their conclusion.
Then they stop.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Still such proxies are useful. And for CC there are many proxies which all sort of indicate climate. I’m not sure if they control for some other factors (aside from temp) for trees or other proxies, but here is a chart of several proxies that are used for climate (the black line at the end is the instrumental data), with the Wiki article discussing several of them at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

My point was that after the 1960s the tree ring proxy was not useful – falling well below the instrumental data (though it had been tracking it fairly well earlier) – and that might be because of the GH effect type of warming we are experiencing nowadays, with the more greatly increasing night temps being harmful to plants and perhaps trees.

Another interesting thing is that the winter climate is warming faster than the summer climate.

I know that is very bad for certain fruit-bearing trees like apple and cherry. They need cold winters in order to produce their fruit in summer. A friend of ours in Germany complained one year about her apple tree not bearing apples, while in another context she had spoke of the unusually warm winter they had had, so I explained it may be due to that very warm winter they had.

Apple trees are not a good example. Apples are very climatic. What grows in Michigan won’t grow in, say, Alabama unless genetically modified, and vice versa. There are, in the U.S. “northern” varieties and “southern” varieties. We’re in the “southern” variety zone, and always have been. Laura Ingalls Wilder moved to this part of the country in the late 19th Century and had a commercial orchard. Those varieties are still grown here, though they are considered an “antique apple” variety now. Southern apples only produce where the mean summer temperature is between two numbers in the 60s that I no longer remember. The lady in Germany might do well to accept one failed season and not change varieties.

Some other example would be better.

 

[lynnvinc]

So they use the data until it no longer supports their conclusion.
Then they stop.

You’ve got to be joking. Instrumental data is more accurate than proxy data. They only use proxy data when they don’t have instrumental data.

Here’s how it works in general. (I used to teach research methods.) They will look for proxies (like tree rings, etc) they think will give a good estimate of the factor of interest (like temperatures) for time periods or places where they don’t have the more accurate instrumental data. They then compare the proxy data with the instrumental data during periods (or places) where they do have both types of data. If the proxy gives a good estimate of the instrumental data, then they use the proxy data for periods of time (or places) where they do not have the instrumental data.

If they have both the proxy and instrumental data for a period of time (or a place) then they will use the instrumental data and not use the proxy data. It’s because they want to use the best data possible, not because they want to use whatever data support some preconceived or desired conclusion.

This also relates to Mann’s “trick” to “hide the decline” – which was a method he shared with another climate scientist about how to “splice” together the earlier tree ring data with the more current instrumental data in a graph, and “hide the decline” in the tree ring data.

All I was saying is that I think I might have some idea why the trees haven’t been doing as well with this current warming caused by the greenhouse effect (and have not been reflecting temps as well) – that the more rapidly warming nights (or perhaps more rapidly warming winters) have been negatively affecting the trees. I don’t know if anyone is looking into this, because to me it is not only a proxy problem, but also another negative impact of the increasing greenhouse effect (global warming).

 

[Abynissa]

[

US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left](US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left | Climate change | The Guardian)

Warming climate makes it ‘inevitable’ that contiguous US will lose all of its glaciers within decades, according to scientists

Warming temperatures have rapidly reduced the size of 39 named glaciers in Montana since 1966, according to comparisons released by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and Portland State University. Some have lost as much as 85% of their expanse over the past 50 years, with Glacier national park, site of 37 of the surveyed glaciers, set to lose all of its eponymous ice formations within the next few decades. Of the 150 glaciers that existed in the park in the late 19th century, only 26 remain.

The disappearance of glaciers in Montana is part of a broader loss that will see all glaciers, defined as moving bodies of snow and ice larger than 25 acres, largely vanish from the lower 48 states of America by the mid point of the century, according to Dr Daniel Farge, lead USGS scientist.

“It’s inevitable that we will lose them all over the next few decades,” Farge said. “The Colorado glaciers started melting before Montana’s and while there are larger glaciers in the Pacific north-west that will hold on longer, the number vanishing will steadily grow until none are left.”

Irrefutable Truth

 

[Ender]

Instrumental data is more accurate than proxy data. They only use proxy data when they don’t have instrumental data.

The presence of both proxy and instrument data provides a good check on the accuracy of the particular proxy chosen. That Mann’s tree ring data diverged rather significantly from the instrument data when both were availabe should be taken as an indication that his reconstructions might be less than accurate. This is especially true given that they completely missed the MWP and the LIA. There really is nothing in his work that should be taken seriously by us, especially as scientists themselves seem to have abandoned it. Certainly nothing of it remains in the IPCC reconstructions of historical temperatures.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Warming climate makes it ‘inevitable’ that contiguous US will lose all of its glaciers within decades, according to scientists

The proper question is not simply “Has there been warming?”, but “What caused it?” Evidence of past warming says nothing about what led to it, or - more relevantly - whether it will continue.

Ender

 

[vz71]

You’ve got to be joking. Instrumental data is more accurate than proxy data. They only use proxy data when they don’t have instrumental data.

As shown in previous posts, tree ring data was used until it no longer supported the conclusion.

This tells me a few things.
1 - they have drawn a conclusion before looking through the data.
2 - they are picking and choosing data to support the conclusion.
3 - the results cannot be trusted.
4 - all of the research utilizing this data is likewise now suspect.

 

[lynnvinc]

Apple trees are not a good example. Apples are very climatic. What grows in Michigan won’t grow in, say, Alabama unless genetically modified, and vice versa. There are, in the U.S. “northern” varieties and “southern” varieties. We’re in the “southern” variety zone, and always have been. Laura Ingalls Wilder moved to this part of the country in the late 19th Century and had a commercial orchard. Those varieties are still grown here, though they are considered an “antique apple” variety now. Southern apples only produce where the mean summer temperature is between two numbers in the 60s that I no longer remember. The lady in Germany might do well to accept one failed season and not change varieties.

Some other example would be better.

Well, it was just a guess on my part based on my meager knowledge and things I had read about apple trees need cold winters. Can’t even remember the source for that. I’m from S. Calif near the coast. I remember orange & eucalyptus trees, but not apple trees, tho I think there were some more inland and up at higher elevations towards the mountains. They don’t grow where I live now (we very rarely get a freeze in winter), or at least no one is growing them.

 

[lynnvinc]

[

US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left](US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left | Climate change | The Guardian)

Warming climate makes it ‘inevitable’ that contiguous US will lose all of its glaciers within decades, according to scientists

Warming temperatures have rapidly reduced the size of 39 named glaciers in Montana since 1966, according to comparisons released by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and Portland State University. Some have lost as much as 85% of their expanse over the past 50 years, with Glacier national park, site of 37 of the surveyed glaciers, set to lose all of its eponymous ice formations within the next few decades. Of the 150 glaciers that existed in the park in the late 19th century, only 26 remain.

The disappearance of glaciers in Montana is part of a broader loss that will see all glaciers, defined as moving bodies of snow and ice larger than 25 acres, largely vanish from the lower 48 states of America by the mid point of the century, according to Dr Daniel Farge, lead USGS scientist.

“It’s inevitable that we will lose them all over the next few decades,” Farge said. “The Colorado glaciers started melting before Montana’s and while there are larger glaciers in the Pacific north-west that will hold on longer, the number vanishing will steadily grow until none are left.”

Irrefutable Truth

Problem is now that we have frost-free refrigerators, people find it hard to understand that warmth melts ice.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As shown in previous posts, tree ring data was used until it no longer supported the conclusion.

This is an interpretation overlay meant to imply a motive, but on that score it is just your speculation. There was no tree ring data that contradicted the conclusion.

1 - they have drawn a conclusion before looking through the data.

This is highly unlikely.

2 - they are picking and choosing data to support the conclusion.

If so, you should be able to pick and choose data that supports the opposite conclusion. Can you do it?

4 - all of the research utilizing this data is likewise now suspect.

Actually the additional research on this topic does not rest on Mann’s conclusion, but rather independently verifies it. So even if the methods of Mann turn out to be flawed, the conclusions reached by subsequent research rest on their own methods and not on Mann’s.

 

[Xystus]

assets.amuniversal.com/97ed9410fd89013486fb005056a9545d

this is a direct link to today’s Dilbert about climate science.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You are simply wrong in that. Hansen has spoken a lot about methane emissions, and the Bush administration even brought him in to some meetings on that.

Also others do point out land use issues. For some general background on this see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_use,_land-use_change_and_forestry

And some others point out how carbon is being released from melting permafrost and ocean clathrates.

However, for people who don’t own a lot of land as you do, there is not much they can do about land use – except maybe plant more trees in their yard (which could also improve their property value and keep them cooler).

So for most of us it is a matter of reducing our CO2 emissions thru energy/resource conservation/efficiency and going on alt energy when feasible.

I’m thinking that halting oil, coal, and gas extraction from public lands might be a good idea, since such extraction in itself (aside from combustion) would contribute to climate change, esp mountaintop removal.

Methane and CO2 emissions are said to be climate changers, but burning fossil fuels does not, in itself, release methane into the atmosphere.

Actually, there are things people can do about land use even if they don’t own land, but they are political things. For example, why does the government subsidize irrigation of deserts when it could use those funds to give farmers and ranchers incentives to improve use of land that can actually sequester carbon? There are things you can do to grasslands and forests immediately to improve sequestration, but most of them take time and investment. Also, trade and aid policies can influence land use elsewhere.

Finally, the ongoing government appropriation of land, particularly in the west, virtually guarantees mismanagement. Government tends to think of “preservation” in terms of exclusion of human activity and neglect, in the apparent belief that some “primeval state of nature” can be achieved by excluding human activity. Generally, though, such appropriation encourages desertification.

A small example. Near where I live is a sizeable national forest. Not all “deserts” are in arid regions. Forests can be “deserts” too, in terms of biodiversity, water retention and the natural fertilization that wildlife and human activity can bring. In that national forest, they just let it do what it will, with the result that the forest floor is a desert with little wildlife and a lot of forest floor detritus that encourages not only fires but CO2 release in other ways.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Irrefutable Truth

Actually, it’s claimed before and refuted before by nature itself.

The planet has been cooling most of the last 2 decades…

 

[SuperLuigi]

As shown in previous posts, tree ring data was used until it no longer supported the conclusion.

This tells me a few things.
1 - they have drawn a conclusion before looking through the data.
2 - they are picking and choosing data to support the conclusion.
3 - the results cannot be trusted.
4 - all of the research utilizing this data is likewise now suspect.

:clapping:

 

[Abynissa]

:clapping:

These posts are like trolls who post on threads for Team Deza as if posts were created by a bot . I’m curious if you get paid for posting as you post replies as you post replies to yourself? Your posts immanent Putin’s strategy of extreme division with board labels. Everything evil is lableled Liberal and everything good is labeled Right.

The truth of the matter is that board segment of the population are Independents. There is no Right or Left except in your mind, which represents only 18% of the voters. The mindspeak, disinformation on here is incredible and has no factual relevant data but spin from Zerohedge, extreme AltRight, RT, Spuknick News and other fakenews sites. Post never accept centrist positions or moderate postion but since you are outside this country what do you expect There is lots of evidence but you ignore it. It certainly doesn’t representthe views of His Holiness Pope Francis nor members of the IC community.

Opps,
Exxon admits it lost up to a year’s worth of Rex Tillerson’s ‘Wayne Tracker’ emails

Exxon is under investigation by New York State Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman for allegedly misleading shareholders and investors about risk-management issues related to climate change.

Tillerson used the Wayne Tracker alias to communicate with Exxon officials about “risk-management issues related to climate change.” Tillerson — whose middle name is Wayne — allegedly used the alias for a period of seven years, between 2008 and 2015, according to Schneiderman’s office.

 

[Ender]

This is an interpretation overlay meant to imply a motive, but on that score it is just your speculation. There was no tree ring data that contradicted the conclusion.

[/quote]

The entire “Hide the Decline” controversy was about hiding the tree ring data that was demonstrably wrong. When the data showed that the reconstructed temperatures were cooling (while instrument data showed the opposite) they simply discarded the inconvenient data and “hid” what they were doing.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The entire “Hide the Decline” controversy was about hiding the tree ring data that was demonstrably wrong.

You mean someone complained that tree ring data was being hidden? Were their concerns justified, or were they just grasping at straws? Not every “controversy” is worthy of the name.

When the data showed that the reconstructed temperatures were cooling (while instrument data showed the opposite) they simply discarded the inconvenient data and “hid” what they were doing.

Was this fine-grain data or significantly long trend data? It is not a failure of temperature reconstruction if a few samples isolated in time or space are contrary to instrumental data. The claim of temperature reconstruction has never been for fine-grain agreement.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Actually, it’s claimed before and refuted before by nature itself.

The planet has been cooling most of the last 2 decades…

What is your source for that?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

[

US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left](US Glacier national park losing its glaciers with just 26 of 150 left | Climate change | The Guardian)

Warming climate makes it ‘inevitable’ that contiguous US will lose all of its glaciers within decades, according to scientists

Warming temperatures have rapidly reduced the size of 39 named glaciers in Montana since 1966, according to comparisons released by the US Geological Survey (USGS) and Portland State University. Some have lost as much as 85% of their expanse over the past 50 years, with Glacier national park, site of 37 of the surveyed glaciers, set to lose all of its eponymous ice formations within the next few decades. Of the 150 glaciers that existed in the park in the late 19th century, only 26 remain.

The disappearance of glaciers in Montana is part of a broader loss that will see all glaciers, defined as moving bodies of snow and ice larger than 25 acres, largely vanish from the lower 48 states of America by the mid point of the century, according to Dr Daniel Farge, lead USGS scientist.

“It’s inevitable that we will lose them all over the next few decades,” Farge said. “The Colorado glaciers started melting before Montana’s and while there are larger glaciers in the Pacific north-west that will hold on longer, the number vanishing will steadily grow until none are left.”

Irrefutable Truth

ALL of NORTH AMERICA was covered a mile thick by glaciers. As far south as Pennsylvania.

ALL GONE.

As the Ice Age went away, so also did the glaciers melt.

There are places where as the glaciers retreated, they left behind fields of boulders that had been carried down from the north.

The smaller rocks are used for construction; they are referred to as “glacial till”.

THE LAST FEW GLACIERS ARE GOING NOW.

IT’S ALL NATURAL!