Is Pope Francis right on climate change?

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

So you take the retroactive approach instead of the proactive approach?. Listen, it doesn’t hurt to take these steps anyway to go towards sustainable living and being more ‘one with the earth’…I believe that’s what God would smile upon. But it does mean sacrificing some of our comforts for a new more natural way of living.

Bingo…there is that word “sacrifice”…

“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a non-value.

It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.

Ayn Rand

 

[Karen107]

The claims that are disputed are those that don’t stand up well to scrutiny, and the number of those is legion. Start with the most significant assertions about the coming apocalyptic meltdown of the Earth. The models all predicted significantly more warming than we have actually seen and no scientist has a convincing explanation for the hiatus in warming. That is, even the scientists in whom you have so much confidence cannot explain what is happening, and why what they predicted is not happening. The fact of the matter is that the science is nowhere nearly as settled as you believe it to be.

Ender

I disagree. I believe that the numbers are showing overall rapid global warming. The models you are looking at are bias. Some have claimed that we’re not in global warming because it’s still cold and we still see snow… A fallacy when we consider that there are large areas of our world where they’ve experienced record heat and drought. You’ve claimed because there has been a temporary slowdown of global warming that it means that global warming isn’t real when theres a scientific explanation to why at this moment of time there is a slowdown… it’s the calm before the storm.

“Cool Pacific temperatures have played a key role in modulating atmospheric temperature increases in the past 10 years, only partially offset by modest warming in the Atlantic,” explains the UK Met Office Hadley Center’s Ben Booth in an accompanying commentary published with the study.

washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/26/yes-global-warming-has-slowed-down-a-little-and-yes-you-should-still-worry/

There certainly isn’t any good news here; if anything, the researchers expect this current behavior to snap back soon enough, increasing global warming. “Given the pattern of past historical variation, this trend will likely reverse with internal variability, instead adding to anthropogenic warming in the coming decades,” notes the study.

“Our findings do support the notion that the pause is likely to end,” says Mann. “And perhaps 2014 does herald that at some level.” It was, after all, the hottest year on record.

Other researchers, meanwhile, have cited other forms of natural variability to help explain the so-called pause, such as an uptick in volcanic eruptions, whose atmospheric plumes can lead to a cooling effect by scattering sunlight away from the planet.

The upshot of it all, for those following the climate debate, may be this: We argue, day in and day out, about the meaning of each new piece of science that has some bearing upon what is really, in the end, a policy debate. Thus, when the “pause” showed up, it quickly became a political tool even before its scientific meaning was understood.

But that’s just a bad way of doing things, especially in light of how complex the climate system is — driven by both human-caused factors and also natural variability that isn’t completely understood. There will always be surprises, and they’ll have to be studied. But none of these are likely to undermine the central conclusion of climate research, which is that the globe is warming and we’re causing it.

Even our friend sps says there’s a lot more to climate science than meets the eye but the minute theres something that doesn’t line up exactly with the model people are ready to jump all over it rather than looking at the science behind it. I say that’s bad science.

 

[Karen107]

You are switching topics. The issue here is climate change, not conservation, recycling, or waste. We should certainly take reasonable actions to reduce our negative impacts, and a great deal has already been done in this country to address those particular concerns. But AGW is a completely different animal, and what is being recommended to “mitigate” our CO2 emissions will devastate any economy that tries it (see: Germany, Spain) and will have virtually no effect. If there is a proposal that has a worse return on investment (hugely expensive, no useful benefit) I have yet to see it.

Ender

Actually I’m not switching topics. climate change is due to the waste products of our comfort of driving automobiles, turning on lights, keeping our houses set at a certain temperature, etc. And not enough is being done to conserve energy and our resources… You mention Germany or Spain yet they aren’t the lion share of the emissions, the United States produces much more CO2 emissions than those countries and if we’re not willing to change, and we can go much further, why would we expect them to.

 

[estesbob]

Actually I’m not switching topics. climate change is due to the waste products of our comfort of driving automobiles, turning on lights, keeping our houses set at a certain temperature, etc. And not enough is being done to conserve energy and our resources… You mention Germany or Spain yet they aren’t the lion share of the emissions, the United States produces much more CO2 emissions than those countries and if we’re not willing to change, and we can go much further, why would we expect them to.

And since no one has been able to demonstrate CO2 is a problem we should focus our efforts on other means of protecting the enviroment

 

[Karen107]

And since no one has been able to demonstrate CO2 is a problem we should focus our efforts on other means of protecting the enviroment

But that’s not true. Too much CO2 IS a problem. Too much CO2 harms the environment by trapping the Suns heat into the earths atmosphere causing global warming and climate change. We protect our environment and people by cutting down on CO2 gases.

 

[Karen107]

One other issue that should raise eyebrows is this: if the facts so overwhelmingly support AGW, then why have some of the major players on the AGW side found it necessary (to say nothing of appropriate) to take such deceptive measures to get that message out? The whole business of the leaked East Anglia emails shows just how venal some of their actions were.

Ender

But earlier you said…

If you are concerned about the truth then don’t ever discuss motivation.

Ende

So,… we have to look at the scientific facts not some controversy…The fact is that most scientists believe in man made climate change and we should acknowledge that. From wiki…

Notice the first chart on the opinions of climate and earth scientists on Human Role in global warming.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change

 

[sps49]

I disagree. I believe that the numbers are showing overall rapid global warming. The models you are looking at are bias. Some have claimed that we’re not in global warming because it’s still cold and we still see snow… A fallacy when we consider that there are large areas of our world where they’ve experienced record heat and drought. You’ve claimed because there has been a temporary slowdown of global warming that it means that global warming isn’t real when theres a scientific explanation to why at this moment of time there is a slowdown… it’s the calm before the storm.
…

There certainly isn’t any good news here; if anything, the researchers expect this current behavior to snap back soon enough, increasing global warming. “Given the pattern of past historical variation, this trend will likely reverse with internal variability, instead adding to anthropogenic warming in the coming decades,” notes the study.

Even our friend sps says there’s a lot more to climate science than meets the eye but the minute theres something that doesn’t line up exactly with the model people are ready to jump all over it rather than looking at the science behind it. I say that’s bad science.

The models have climate sensitivities that are too high, they don’t show proper phasing of the multi decadal oscillations, have large uncertainties in solar indirect/direct forcing and aerosol effects, poor spatial surface temperature profiles, and only in the last 10 or so years reliable ocean temperature data. The only method that we have to compare temperature rate of change is the proxy record, which suffers from poor sub-centennial temporal resolution for the Holocene, and extra-centennial in pre Holocene. Therefore, from that standpoint there is not a reliable measure yet to compare. We don’t have other critical information for climate parameters during these times either, so direct comparisons are dodgy. Therefore the rapid warming claim is unsupported by the data. No one is saying the temperature is not changing, but I am saying that the reasons are not well enough understood to blame man.

I use models all the time at work. If a model shows behavior not consistent with the physical system, we find out why before we use it again. A model either reproduces the characteristics of the physical system with good fidelity or it does not.

CO2, with no cloud feedbacks, carbon sinks, aerosols, or other energy transfer effects may or may not behave the way you describe. But this is not an “all things being equal” simple physical model, it is the physical system of our planetary climate, for which there are many unknowns to contend with, so simply saying CO2 increases temperature is not accurate, and probably not what we are seeing.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Actually I’m not switching topics. climate change is due to the waste products of our comfort of driving automobiles, turning on lights, keeping our houses set at a certain temperature, etc. And not enough is being done to conserve energy and our resources… You mention Germany or Spain yet they aren’t the lion share of the emissions, the United States produces much more CO2 emissions than those countries and if we’re not willing to change, and we can go much further, why would we expect them to.

…and Russia, China and India each produce more man made CO2 emissions than the U.S.

The United States has had a increase of GDP and a reduction of CO2 emissions to almost a 20 year low.

Yet environmentalists still point their finger at America.

This indicates to me that environmentalists and political scientists have no comprehension (or really don’t care) about emissions. Their aim seems to be to reduce the United States to a third world country.

The golden rule among environmental groups is “never, ever admit that progress has been achieved – especially when Republicans are in power”. It’s awfully tough for those organizations to raise money if donors aren’t kept in a constant state of panic.

 

[Karen107]

…and Russia, China and India each produce more man made CO2 emissions than the U.S.

The United States has had a increase of GDP and a reduction of CO2 emissions to almost a 20 year low.

Yet environmentalists still point their finger at America.

This indicates to me that environmentalists and political scientists have no comprehension (or really don’t care) about emissions. Their aim seems to be to reduce the United States to a third world country.

The golden rule among environmental groups is “never, ever admit that progress has been achieved – especially when Republicans are in power”. It’s awfully tough for those organizations to raise money if donors aren’t kept in a constant state of panic.

That’s politics again… Political scientists?? Would that include the EPA?

…Of course public opinion matters… our opinions matter if we want to see change. Activism is not a bad thing as been presented here. I would say Jesus and the Apostles were activists for change and that was a good thing!..

Well the way I see it is that everyone needs to be a part of this in order to make a ‘significant’ change in CO2 emissions. We have people here who are denying that there isn’t any change in climate and that global warming doesn’t exist. Now I see two people you and sps admitting that no one is saying that the temperature isn’t changing. I see that as a step in the right direction. We CAN do a lot more to reduce our emissions and no one is saying that means we have to live like a third world nation, we just have to develop better technology and not more of the same old way which is reliant on fossil fuels. A 20 year low is good yet we can even do better. Perhaps stop buying so many disposable bottles of water will help, less meat, drive less and use more fuel efficient cars and that is the short list, all the things people have gotten accustomed to that are contributing to the excess amount of CO2 in our atmosphere.

snvplastics.com/global-warming-on-plastic-bottles/

The way I see it conservation is a win win win situation. We stop pollution, live more naturally as God intended, as well as lessening the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

[Karen107]

The models have climate sensitivities that are too high, they don’t show proper phasing of the multi decadal oscillations, have large uncertainties in solar indirect/direct forcing and aerosol effects, poor spatial surface temperature profiles, and only in the last 10 or so years reliable ocean temperature data. The only method that we have to compare temperature rate of change is the proxy record, which suffers from poor sub-centennial temporal resolution for the Holocene, and extra-centennial in pre Holocene. Therefore, from that standpoint there is not a reliable measure yet to compare. We don’t have other critical information for climate parameters during these times either, so direct comparisons are dodgy. Therefore the rapid warming claim is unsupported by the data. No one is saying the temperature is not changing, but I am saying that the reasons are not well enough understood to blame man.

I use models all the time at work. If a model shows behavior not consistent with the physical system, we find out why before we use it again. A model either reproduces the characteristics of the physical system with good fidelity or it does not.

CO2, with no cloud feedbacks, carbon sinks, aerosols, or other energy transfer effects may or may not behave the way you describe. But this is not an “all things being equal” simple physical model, it is the physical system of our planetary climate, for which there are many unknowns to contend with, so simply saying CO2 increases temperature is not accurate, and probably not what we are seeing.

Fair enough, you are not convinced the global warming and climate change is caused by man. But that doesn’t mean that other scientists agree with you and are not convinced.,some would say how could you not? Just last month I listened to a lecture given by a physicist at an energy research center about mans impact on global warming and climate change…So well I’m in the other camp. .

 

[estesbob]

Fair enough, you are not convinced the global warming and climate change is caused by man. But that doesn’t mean that other scientists agree with you and are not convinced.,some would say how could you not? Just last month I listened to a lecture given by a physicist at an energy research center about mans impact on global warming and climate change…So well I’m in the other camp. .

Did he explain why temperatures haven’t risen In nearly 20 yeas?

 

[cjforJesus]

Anthropogenic climate change is probably false.

One cannot deny the changes in the weather, and the nearly constant hazy jet trailed skies. What is causing it is to most a mystery.

 

[Ender]

I disagree. I believe that the numbers are showing overall rapid global warming.

The numbers are unequivocal: there has been no statistically significant change in temperature for over 18 years. There has been warming in the past, that is not disputed, but the Earth has shown no measurable warming in nearly two decades. Unless you can accept what the data plainly show - and what is recognized by scientists on both sides of the issue - it seems pointless to continue. Either facts are meaningful or they aren’t.

The models you are looking at are bias.

I am referencing the models used by the IPCC. If you think they are biased then you should ignore what the IPCC says on the matter.

You’ve claimed because there has been a temporary slowdown of global warming that it means that global warming isn’t real when theres a scientific explanation to why at this moment of time there is a slowdown… it’s the calm before the storm.

No, I have never made such a claim. What I’ve said is quite simple: warming has stopped. Period. I never suggested it won’t start again or the fact that it is not occurring now means it never occurred in the past. I also reject the assertion that there is a scientific explanation for the hiatus. There are several hypotheses but nothing that even rises to the level of a cogent theory. As of now, scientists are stumped.

“Our findings do support the notion that the pause is likely to end,”

You substantiate my point: we are in a pause. Why do you keep insisting warming is continuing when your own citations admit we are not?

Other researchers, meanwhile, have cited other forms of natural variability to help explain the so-called pause, such as an uptick in volcanic eruptions, whose atmospheric plumes can lead to a cooling effect by scattering sunlight away from the planet.

Again, here is recognition of the “pause” in warming. Everyone but you acknowledges it. As I said earlier, there are any number of explanations as to why warming has paused, but don’t confuse conjecture with evidence.

Thus, when the “pause” showed up, it quickly became a political tool even before its scientific meaning was understood.

I’m totally confused. In your first sentence you asserted that “the numbers are showing overall rapid global warming”, yet here you acknowledge we are in a pause. Please, take a position. You also asserted above that “there’s a scientific explanation” yet here you admit that the cause of the pause is not understood.

But that’s just a bad way of doing things, especially in light of how complex the climate system is — driven by both human-caused factors and also natural variability that isn’t completely understood.

True, it isn’t completely understood, so stop suggesting that it is.

There will always be surprises, and they’ll have to be studied. But none of these are likely to undermine the central conclusion of climate research, which is that the globe is warming and we’re causing it.

This is a statement of faith, not science.

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

Anthropogenic climate change is probably false.

One cannot deny the changes in the weather, and the nearly constant hazy jet trailed skies. What is causing it is to most a mystery.

Hazy skies might be a local phenomenon. Beginning about now, ours turns deep blue and lasts into the fall. You can almost see the blackness of space at the very “top” of the sky, it’s so clear. But that’s because it gets really dry and there isn’t much water vapor in the air.

 

[Karen107]

Did he explain why temperatures haven’t risen In nearly 20 yeas?

Actually he talked mostly about energy from a physicists perspective. He didn’t denounce climate change because it’s a given. Our world is warming and it’s affecting our climate and it’s time that you start acknowledging that. . He did talk about nuclear energy and how it’s not the end-all because our future generations will have to deal with all the nuclear waste that’s being buried right now.

 

[Karen107]

The numbers are unequivocal: there has been no statistically significant change in temperature for over 18 years. There has been warming in the past, that is not disputed, but the Earth has shown no measurable warming in nearly two decades. Unless you can accept what the data plainly show - and what is recognized by scientists on both sides of the issue - it seems pointless to continue. Either facts are meaningful or they aren’t.
I am referencing the models used by the IPCC. If you think they are biased then you should ignore what the IPCC says on the matter.
No, I have never made such a claim. What I’ve said is quite simple: warming has stopped. Period. I never suggested it won’t start again or the fact that it is not occurring now means it never occurred in the past. I also reject the assertion that there is a scientific explanation for the hiatus. There are several hypotheses but nothing that even rises to the level of a cogent theory. As of now, scientists are stumped.
You substantiate my point: we are in a pause. Why do you keep insisting warming is continuing when your own citations admit we are not?
Again, here is recognition of the “pause” in warming. Everyone but you acknowledges it. As I said earlier, there are any number of explanations as to why warming has paused, but don’t confuse conjecture with evidence.
I’m totally confused. In your first sentence you asserted that “the numbers are showing overall rapid global warming”, yet here you acknowledge we are in a pause. Please, take a position. You also asserted above that “there’s a scientific explanation” yet here you admit that the cause of the pause is not understood.
True, it isn’t completely understood, so stop suggesting that it is.
This is a statement of faith, not science.

Ender

Because the warming has paused doesn’t mean it has stopped… Just look at all the pauses and dips in the past 100 years, yet the climate temperatures continued to rise and it is rising at a rate where we can see the visible changes because of global warming… That is what’ our future will look like if we don’t take the necessary steps to end global warming, the earth will continue to warm up and this causes climatic changes.

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

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Laudato Si identifies climate change as an environmental problem that demands immediate action. Pope Francis believes that human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming or climate change. Is he justified in this belief?

He is right that we need to repent of how we have misused and abused the goods of the earth, our sister, who cries out to us.

He is right that wee need to see the interconnectedness of all life and nature.

He is right that we need to rethink our relationships with nature.

He is right that the earth does not belong to us but to God and wee need t care for it, not exploit it.

 

[estesbob]

Actually he talked mostly about energy from a physicists perspective. He didn’t denounce climate change because it’s a given. Our world is warming and it’s affecting our climate and it’s time that you start acknowledging that. . He did talk about nuclear energy and how it’s not the end-all because our future generations will have to deal with all the nuclear waste that’s being buried right now.

So he ignored the inconvenient truth that CO2 has risen but temperatures have not
. I am sure, however that nobody challenged him lest the be ridden out of the room a. A rail No dissent is tolerated on AGW!

 

[Karen107]

Hazy skies might be a local phenomenon. Beginning about now, ours turns deep blue and lasts into the fall. You can almost see the blackness of space at the very “top” of the sky, it’s so clear. But that’s because it gets really dry and there isn’t much water vapor in the air.

Hazy skies is a result of particles in the air causing the air to be less clear. Like when wildfires are burning and it clouds areas far from where they occur because the smoke moving across the sky. I live in the Chicago Metropolitan area and we have action alert days where the sky is hazy because of pollution is combined with intense heat of the summer causing the air to be unhealthy. So they tell us to not mow in the middle of the day when the heat is hottest and things like that. Los Angeles has the problem of being a metropolitan area trapped in the valley so the heat and the Pollution can’t escape so they have smog.

 

[Karen107]

So he ignored the inconvenient truth that CO2 has risen but temperatures have not
. I am sure, however that nobody challenged him lest the be ridden out of the room a. A rail No dissent is tolerated on AGW!

But the global temperature has risen so why would anyone dispute that? Here have another look at it…

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

A nice video of the change.

climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/28/