Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believers, study says

[Edmundus1581]

…
The AGW issue is similar to many issues involving opinion and belief. The morality comes into play because we are responsible to have a well formed conscience. We have an obligation to educate ourselves, listen to the Church as well as the scientific community, sift through information and misinformation, then follow our conscience, not just believe or not believe as it seems to suit us. We have a responsibility to listen to the scientific majority and the guidance of the Church (even though it is not dogma). If we still have a contrary view what is the basis for it?

You expressed this very, very well Michael. Thankyou.

 

[Edmundus1581]

You are showing your ignorance.** This is elementary science. If ice floating in water melts, it DOES NOT put more water in the oceans. ** All that water is already in the ocean in ice form.

What would raise ocean levels is the melting of continental ice (glaciers) since all of that water IS NOT already stored in ice form IN the oceans.

Show me!!! I demand to see which scientists have published this in peer review journals that have been accepted by the Church. With pictures. Hundreds of them. And without words, graphs or slideshows. I want real evidence.

Until then we’ve just got your “expert” opinion, and some global warming alarmists covering up their failed predictions.

 

[John1956]

You are showing your ignorance. This is elementary science. If ice floating in water melts, it DOES NOT put more water in the oceans. All that water is already in the ocean in ice form.

What would raise ocean levels is the melting of continental ice (glaciers) since all of that water IS NOT already stored in ice form IN the oceans.

Right, but glaciers melt in the summer too.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Computer models

The photos are from NASA, who say they are pictures. Do you think they are lying, or just don’t know what they are talking about?

 

[John1956]

The photos are from NASA, who say they are pictures. Do you think they are lying, or just don’t know what they are talking about?

Ok, the cherry-picked pictures show less sea ice. What is the specific fear you are mongering here? Swamped coastal cities?

 

[Edmundus1581]

Ok, the cherry-picked pictures show less sea ice. What is the specific fear you are mongering here? Swamped coastal cities?

These photos were provided in response to the specific request for photographic evidence of global warming in the last twenty years. They are not intended to prove global warming, or AGW, on their own.

As previously discussed, and agreed by you, we would not expect any rise in sea levels from the melting of floating ice, which is what the arctic ice cap is.

The previously cited article on the effects of global warming on sea levels mentions that:

• The melting of the arctic won’t cause any change to sea levels
• The melting of ice in the antarctic and greenland will cause rises in sea levels by 2100, of between 6 and 37 inches, with 20 inches the most likely outcome.

**The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world’s ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.
**
At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affected.

There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt.

But there might be a less dramatic reason than polar ice melting for the higher ocean level – the higher temperature of the water. Water is most dense at 4 degrees Celsius. Above and below this temperature, the density of water decreases (the same weight of water occupies a bigger space). So as the overall temperature of the water increases it naturally expands a little bit making the oceans rise.

In 1995 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report which contained various projections of the sea level change by the year 2100. They estimate that the sea will rise 50 centimeters (20 inches) with the lowest estimates at 15 centimeters (6 inches) and the highest at 95 centimeters (37 inches). The rise will come from thermal expansion of the ocean and from melting glaciers and ice sheets. Twenty inches is no small amount – it could have a big effect on coastal cities, especially during storms.

However, rising sea levels are not the only concern with global warming. The major concerns are about droughts, desert expansion, and other serious ecological and agricultural damage.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

What is the basis for my not getting an answer to my question: Why aren’t coastal cities swamped in the summertime due to huge amounts of polar ice melting? There is about a 50% reduction in sea ice up there from March to September. Sea ice melting is a major talking point for global warming enthusiasts, so there had better be an answer to this. Or could it be that polar ice alarmism isn’t what it’s all cracked up to be?

Your answer is in post #93 and #103 was recent;y added.
Now, what is the basis for your contrary minority view?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Where has the Pope or a Bishop said that 1/2 of a degree increase over the last 100 years is proof of impending doom and gloom?

From Cardinal Pell: catholicnewsagency.com/news/global_warming_threats_exaggerated_says_cardinal_pell/

He is expressing his own minority opinion without evidence.
Why should anyone believe him over the majority scientific commnunity?

 

[John1956]

He is expressing his own minority opinion without evidence.
Why should anyone believe him over the majority scientific commnunity?

Interesting that you say *belief *in the scientific community. I guess in the absence of solid proof, “belief” is a prerequisite for “believing” that catastrophic events are going to occur because of slight temperature fluctuations.

 

[John1956]

Your answer is in post #93 and #103 was recent;y added.
Now, what is the basis for your contrary minority view?

I include glacier ice in polar ice cap and those posts don’t address the question of glacier melting in the summer time.

The basis of my healthy skepticism view is found in posts: 76, 79, 85, 86, 95, and 100.

 

[John1956]

However, rising sea levels are not the only concern with global warming. The major concerns are about droughts, desert expansion, and other serious ecological and agricultural damage.

And how does this gloom and doom happen with only 1/2 of a degree increase over the last 100 years? Has it happened before? You may wish to predict gloom and doom on non-solid theory but don’t expect me to join in. Is it okay that I have a different viewpoint than you on this, or do you require that I also become a “believer” in the global warming hoax? I am ok with you being a global warming hoax activist, but the rub comes when government uses the hoax to expand its reach.

 

[John1956]

You expressed this very, very well Michael. Thankyou.

Yes, Michael, you have expressed it well. I have examined the evidence and find it lacking. Is that ok?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Yes, Michael, you have expressed it well. I have examined the evidence and find it lacking. Is that ok?

Suite yurself. I can’t help wonder though what you think also of heliocentrism. Are you skeptical of that also since the main evidence that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the sun around the earth is mathmatic equations?

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I include glacier ice in polar ice cap and those posts don’t address the question of glacier melting in the summer time.

The basis of my healthy skepticism view is found in posts: 76, 79, 85, 86, 95, and 100.

OK, lets see what we have here.

#100 Right, but glaciers melt in the summer too…

They partially melt and then refreeze the following winter but perhaps not as much as they melted so the cumulative effect over multiple years becomes the concern.

#95 Why aren’t coastal cities swamped in the summertime due to huge amounts of polar ice melting? There is about a 50% reduction in sea ice up there from March to September. Sea ice melting is a major talking point for global warming enthusiasts, so there had better be an answer to this. Or could it be that polar ice alarmism isn’t what it’s all cracked up to be? .

North pole ice “up there” is floating. Most of it is underwater due to the weight of the entire cap yet is less dense than water. When it melts it becomes as dense as the water and takes up less space than it did as ice actually lowering the sea level. The ice above the surface melts and does add to the sea level but not as much as the underwater ice detracts.

"If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 200 feet.

The average surface temperature in Antarctica is minus 37°C right now. So, it seems like the ice there is safe. It’s in no danger of melting unless there are huge changes in the weather patterns all over the planet. But, what about the ice at the other end of the world, in the Arctic Circle? There is already evidence that it is melting to some degree. And, this ice is not nearly as thick as ice at the South Pole. But, the ice floats on the Arctic Ocean, rather than sitting on land. If all the ice at the North Pole melted, sea levels would not be affected."

express.howstuffworks.com/ask-mb-ice-melt.htm

#86 You’re right, I did not refute; your lack of convincing evidence, including the supposed “primary evidence on which the scientific consensus is based,” posted earlier in the thread was, well, simply not convincing.

I have seen no proof that a half a degree warming over the past 100 years warrants such anxiety as I see from some in this thread. If it’s any consolation, it may have been a half a degree cooler 200 years ago.

The half degree or 1.33°F (0.74ºC) is less a concern than the onging trend.

#85 No, that is your job, since your are a polar ice cap melting alarmist…

This is a basis of your view?

#79 I say more pictures are needed, hundreds of pictures, from random times over a two or three hundred year period.

Given your fear about polar ice melting, please tell me why coastal cities are not swamped due to the huge amount of polar ice cap melting in the summer time?.

Already addressed with #95.

#76 So what if the earth has warmed up by 1/2 of a degree in the last 100 years? It’s part of a natural fluctuation. Cooling, warming, cooling, etc.

Two pictures, one from 1980 and one from 2012. Wow. Are there pictures from 1880 and 1912? 1780 and 1812? How about a random sample of pictures instead of two cherry-picked pictures? And how is a millimeter of ocean rising measured with any degree of accuracy, worldwide or even at one spot, given the immense variability in nature?

There’s no solid proof for doomsayer claims about the future regarding slight temperature fluctuations through the years.
.

Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures have warmed roughly 1.33°F (0.74ºC) over the last century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

It may seem insignificant to you now but what if it continues with our support.

Peace, brother John1956. I’m not here to fight with you. I like a reasonable discussion with shared ideas and evidence. You have provided no evidence contrary to the IPCC report though you have shared doubts and reason for your doubts. I hope these comments address them.

 

[John1956]

Suite yurself. I can’t help wonder though what you think also of heliocentrism. Are you skeptical of that also since the main evidence that the earth revolves around the sun rather than the sun around the earth is mathmatic equations?

Equations are not the problem. The problem is with unanswered questions such as:

1. What was the accuracy of temperature measuring devices used 100 years ago?
2. Given the immense variability in nature, is a “global temperature” really valid?
3. Is there a history of catastrophic events occurring due to an increase of a measly 1/2 degree?
4. Why aren’t coastal cities swamped in the summer time due to the huge amount of polar ice (glacier) melting?

 

[John1956]

Peace, brother John1956. I’m not here to fight with you. I like a reasonable discussion with shared ideas and evidence. You have provided no evidence contrary to the IPCC report though you have shared doubts and reason for your doubts. I hope these comments address them.

Your comments “addressed” my doubts but fell short of answering them satisfactorily.

As far as my not providing evidence, that is not my job since I do not accept the premise of the argument (that a 1/2 degree increase is somehow going to result in catastrophe). I don’t see the logic in providing evidence for something I think does not exist. Instead, it is quite appropriate in science for a skeptic to simply question the (wild) claims that are made based on dubious “evidence.”

 

[Michael_Mayo]

You have at least convinced me to go back to school on this issue. :compcoff:

 

[lynnvinc]

Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believers

That’s true, at least re the professional climate change denialists. And it’s why they bear the much greater sin. They KNOW AGW is real and a danger to us, and yet they stick to their falsehoods even after they have been squarely disproven by climate scientists. Then, an even worse sin, they spread those falsehoods among many unwitting people, who gobble it up, perhaps bec they don’t want to take on blame or responsibility for the problem, or are afraid of the conspiracy theories the professional denialists also create and spread – like the AGW Hoax is a plot to take over the world, or ruin the economy, or promote paganism, or kill all the children, or whatever.

It is always safer for us in humility to follow what our Holy Fathers have been telling us: take our due responsibility for anthropogenic climate change and do what we can to mitigate it.

Luckily there are plenty of measures that save us money without lowering our living standards that can get us down to a 30, even 60% reduction of GHGs (and other concomitant pollutants). Since implementing all those takes years, even decades, we can do at least those things, then see how the science turns out later, if we have any doubts about it (I do not).

 

[St_Francis]

Global warming skeptics as knowledgeable about science as climate change believers

That’s true, at least re the professional climate change denialists. And it’s why they bear the much greater sin. They KNOW AGW is real and a danger to us, and yet they stick to their falsehoods even after they have been squarely disproven by climate scientists.

Whoa! wait a second! First, they may not believe in AGW: they may not believe that the temps are rising dangerously,or they may not believe that man’s actions have caused it. It is not right of you to say that they are lying and accuse them of sin!

Then, an even worse sin, they spread those falsehoods among many unwitting people, who gobble it up, perhaps bec they don’t want to take on blame or responsibility for the problem, or are afraid of the conspiracy theories the professional denialists also create and spread – like the AGW Hoax is a plot to take over the world, or ruin the economy, or promote paganism, or kill all the children, or whatever.

Considering everything that has gone on since Malthus first told us that the world was about to fall apart due to mankind’s presence on it, I don’t think that the conspiracy theory idea is all that unreasonable.

It is always safer for us in humility to follow what our Holy Fathers have been telling us: take our due responsibility for anthropogenic climate change and do what we can to mitigate it.

While we must of course follow the pope when he talks about faith and/or morals, and that would include not messing up the earth, that doesn’t mean that we have to agree with him about climate change, which is *not *a matter of faith or morals.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

Equations are not the problem. The problem is with unanswered questions such as:

1. What was the accuracy of temperature measuring devices used 100 years ago?
2. Given the immense variability in nature, is a “global temperature” really valid?
3. Is there a history of catastrophic events occurring due to an increase of a measly 1/2 degree?
4. Why aren’t coastal cities swamped in the summer time due to the huge amount of polar ice (glacier) melting?

1. A thermometer is a relatively simple instrument so the accuracy was not that bad. In any case when averaged over many areas and instruments the errors tend to cancel. (Where there are systematic errors, scientist too have ways to check them).
2. This is a much harder question. The answer is that with care a global temperature is valid. It is not a simple thing to measure. You need a good representative sample that covers the entire Earth over the entire cycle of seasons. Yet scientists have developed an impressive array of sampling techniques and proxies to represent the temperature on average of areas where they don’t have very good data.

(see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record )

1. We are already seeing huge global changes most of which are not good. Granted there are many other factors such as overfishing, etc. But again scientists have been fighting hard trying to figure out this issue for a long time and they have a pretty good idea of what is happening. The world will remain but it won’t be the same place.
2. The change in sea level is mostly due to thermal expansion. Ice that melts on land does contribute some but it isn’t the major contributor.