Is Pope Francis right on climate change?

[cjforJesus]

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.

Not talking about smog but constant hazy skies. Heck the only time you can see a really blue sky is after a good rain or a very windy day…

I also hate the hazy skies cause the jets to leave horrible ugly exhaust trails all over the sky.

 

[cjforJesus]

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.

He is right that about 15% of the population manipulates and controls the other 85%

 

[sps49]

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. .

Of course there are scientists that do not agree with me. But there are many whom I do agree with that are not pro-AGW. It has been a blessing to work in science an engineering for these past years, and to have a reasoned debate with other professionals. From what I can tell, I am in marvelous company.

For those who ask “how could I not believe,” I must ponder the paradox of their love of science, and intolerance of dissenting opinions. The most magnificent discussions I have had have been with people who have differing opinions, and who thank me for mine, as I do theirs. My “camp” if you would care to know, is the camp of inquiry.

 

[estesbob]

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/

We were told unequivocally in 1998 that temperatures would rise to dangerous levels if we didn’t reduce CO2 CO2 increased Temps did not

 

[Ridgerunner]

We were told unequivocally in 1998 that temperatures would rise to dangerous levels if we didn’t reduce CO2 CO2 increased Temps did not

Nevertheless, in its name, Obama wants utility bills to increase by 32% in 15 years. They likely will because of inflation anyway, but a real increase is one taking inflation into account, or something more like 60%. This really is a cruel decree on his part, because a lot of people can’t keep up with inflation, let alone an artificial hike besides. If ever anyone believed Obama’s party stands for aid to the poor, this alone should disabuse him of that notion.

Nor will it make any difference anyway. No matter what is done in the U.S., it will have negligible effect on worldwide CO2 emissions. So, if the MMGW believers really think MMGW is at hand, their leader, at least, is decreeing the thing most likely to make it more deadly than it would otherwise be.

 

[sps49]

We were told unequivocally in 1998 that temperatures would rise to dangerous levels if we didn’t reduce CO2 CO2 increased Temps did not

The model did not correctly describe the physical system. What is more amazing than why we were told this, is why anyone would risk such a pronouncement with such poverty of facts. The obvious answer is sensationalism and attention. Now the politicization is complete and the trajectory of climate science is determined by mob rule.

 

[Karen107]

We were told unequivocally in 1998 that temperatures would rise to dangerous levels if we didn’t reduce CO2 CO2 increased Temps did not

Temperatures are already at dangerous levels, a global temperature rise of even one degree causes great change because it takes a vast amount of heat to cause such a large bodies of water, land masses and atmosphere to rise one degree, All that heat energy is making for a more active and unpredictable climate.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

As other posters have said, science is not based on one model or one analysis of data (which can be twisted as I predict your data about the earths temperature not changing is, it’s based on many factors and tests, research, etc., each being analyzed in order to come to a consensus among scientists. That has been done and it is generally accepted among scientists that we are experiencing global warming which is causing climate change.

 

[sps49]

Nevertheless, in its name, Obama wants utility bills to increase by 32% in 15 years. They likely will because of inflation anyway, but a real increase is one taking inflation into account, or something more like 60%. This really is a cruel decree on his part, because a lot of people can’t keep up with inflation, let alone an artificial hike besides. If ever anyone believed Obama’s party stands for aid to the poor, this alone should disabuse him of that notion.

Nor will it make any difference anyway. No matter what is done in the U.S., it will have negligible effect on worldwide CO2 emissions. So, if the MMGW believers really think MMGW is at hand, their leader, at least, is decreeing the thing most likely to make it more deadly than it would otherwise be.

Look at Germany’s energy prices, much higher than 32-60% over conventional baseline, and while US rates may be subsidized to obscure it, it will be made up by taxes. It’s what you would do in a thought experiment designed to intentionally damage an economy and energy system, only they forgot it was a thought experiment, or perhaps they didn’t.

 

[Karen107]

The model did not correctly describe the physical system. What is more amazing than why we were told this, is why anyone would risk such a pronouncement with such poverty of facts. The obvious answer is sensationalism and attention. Now the politicization is complete and the trajectory of climate science is determined by mob rule.

Do you agree with him that global warming is not happening and is not a concern?

The mob rule may indeed apply but it’s not by the climatic scientists who agree on human influence on global warming and climate change.

 

[sps49]

Do you agree with him that global warming is not happening and is not a concern?

The mob rule may indeed apply but it’s not by the climatic scientists who agree on human influence on global warming and climate change.

Which “him” do you speak of? The answer is the same: The planet has experienced an increase, or decrease in temperature, depending on the assigned start and stop points on the time series. This change in temperature is a result of dynamics that we humans do not completely understand. As I have said before, it is not the temperature change per se, but why the temperature has changed that is of interest. This is known as attribution, which is crudely broken down to natural variation, and man made causes. At this time the data do not show a clear attribution.

Consensus is mob rule, very much like a pure Athenian Democracy, and just as deadly to us as it was Socrates. Science does not require consensus unless the uncertainties are high, and/or prejudices for a particular answer exist. Consensus messaging organizations now acknowledges that this is counter-productive: See Cultural Cognition. It is the same thing that our politicians do when we vote in a way that displeases them, they assume that the voter did not understand the issues properly, and embark upon a message/educational campaign to remedy the “misunderstanding.” It obviously never occurs to them that we understood and rejected the proposition.

 

[estesbob]

Temperatures are already at dangerous levels, a global temperature rise of even one degree causes great change because it takes a vast amount of heat to cause such a large bodies of water, land masses and atmosphere to rise one degree, All that heat energy is making for a more active and unpredictable climate.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

As other posters have said, science is not based on one model or one analysis of data (which can be twisted as I predict your data about the earths temperature not changing is, it’s based on many factors and tests, research, etc., each being analyzed in order to come to a consensus among scientists. That has been done and it is generally accepted among scientists that we are experiencing global warming which is causing climate change.

Temperatures are not at dangerous levels Storms are not more intense. What we are experiencing is weathe

 

[Ridgerunner]

Do you agree with him that global warming is not happening and is not a concern?

.

I don’t know about him, but the majority of meteorologists believe either that there is no MMGW or that it exists but is not a serious concern.

I have read that the great majority of people who study climate and have some claim to being scientists are the same. The claim of “all scientists” believing this or that is just false. Some believe it’s real and extremely threatening. Some believe it’s real and not a big concern. Some believe it’s real but don’t know whether it’s a big concern. Some believe it’s real but caused by factors other than CO2 emissions.

 

[Karen107]

Temperatures are not at dangerous levels Storms are not more intense. What we are experiencing is weathe

Yes we’re experiencing more intense and erratic weather. That’s what the scientists are saying.

 

[Karen107]

I don’t know about him, but the majority of meteorologists believe either that there is no MMGW or that it exists but is not a serious concern.

I have read that the great majority of people who study climate and have some claim to being scientists are the same. The claim of “all scientists” believing this or that is just false. Some believe it’s real and extremely threatening. Some believe it’s real and not a big concern. Some believe it’s real but don’t know whether it’s a big concern. Some believe it’s real but caused by factors other than CO2 emissions.

I was speaking to Bob who is making the claim that the temperature hasn’t changed in the last 15 years (by what model I don’t know) so therefore global warming isn’t happening. I never said all, I said the general consensus… That doesn’t have to mean all because there will always be skeptics who hold out for one reason or the other.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I was speaking to Bob who is making the claim that the temperature hasn’t changed in the last 15 years (by what model I don’t know) so therefore global warming isn’t happening. I never said all, I said the general consensus… That doesn’t have to mean all because there will always be skeptics who hold out for one reason or the other.

There is no general consensus combining a belief in MMGW with a belief that it portends catastrophe.

 

[Karen107]

Which “him” do you speak of? The answer is the same: The planet has experienced an increase, or decrease in temperature, depending on the assigned start and stop points on the time series.

Estesbob…

Exactly! which is why we can’t pass judgement on climate change by one period of time. Climatologists would never do that. They’d look at trends over a longer period of time.

 

[Karen107]

There is no general consensus combining a belief in MMGW with a belief that it portends catastrophe.

Well I suppose that’s the topic of this post…

You are free to believe that but I absolutely agree with the Pope, the scientists and many on this thread who also agree.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Lynn sed:

And, as mentioned, WGI “The Science” uses only top level peer-reviewed studies and data, and even WGII and WGIII use very good sources for the most part – the glacier-gate fiasco is bound to make these reports even better and more error-free.

FOC: Did Dr. Mann use good data in his two Hockey Stick papers (MBH 98 and MBH 99)?

P: I am very sure he did.

FOC: But aren’t you aware of the work of Steven McIntyre and Ross McKittrick?

P: I am, but they aren’t real scientists.

FOC: Isn’t it true that McIntyre reported numerous problems with Mann’s data. In some cases it was impossible to find the original data sources. The data sets had gaps and in some instances the gaps were filled in using the last available number. Some data sets were mislabeled, some were truncated, and some were obsolete. McIntyre also discovered that Mann had used data sets which were known to be unsuitable for temperature reconstructions but which were apparently included because they had the desired hockey stick shape. Isn’t that all true?

P: I really doubt it.

FOC: Are you aware that McIntyre’s revelations forced Mann to publish corrections?

P: Really? No I didn’t know that.

FOC: [hands Dr. P a copy of the first MM paper published in Energy and Environment.] Dr. P, have read this journal article?

P: No.

FOC: Are you aware of any peer-reviewed articles which showed that Mann’s data did not have gaps, was not mislabeled, obsolete, etc.?

P: No. But his conclusions were vindicated by many other independent studies, including a blue-ribbon panel sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences.

FOC: So using bad data is OK as long as someone else agrees with your conclusions?

P: [sputters something inaudible]

FOC: Isn’t it true, then, that we have a very important and influential paper that had serious problems with its data, and yet it made it through peer review and eventually was published in Nature in 1998?

P: Apparently.

FOC: And isn’t also true that it sailed on through the “very rigorous” IPCC review process, with the Hockey Stick curve given prominent display in multiple parts of the 2001 report?

P: Well they must have thought that the data problems weren’t that severe.

FOC: Isn’t it also true that, according to Steven McIntyre, there was every indication that no one bothered to look at Mann’s data until 2004, when McIntyre attempted to audit Mann’s work?

P: Hard to believe.
FOC: Dr. P, isn’t also true that true that Mann’s methods were found to be severely flawed?

P: I know there were allegations of such, but I don’t know that they were ever proved.

FOC: Specifically, are you aware that two expert panels both agreed that Mann’s Hockey Stick was an artifact of his flawed statistical methods and not inherent in the data?

P: Probably experts funded by the fossil fuel industry.

FOC: Are you aware that one of the panels was formed by the National Academy of Sciences and was actually very friendly to Mann and tried very hard to support him?

P: No

FOC: So isn’t it true that a study with bad data and bad methods not only survived normal peer review but also passed muster with the IPCC?

P: So what. Other independent studies reached the same conclusions.

FOC: So using bad data and bad methods doesn’t matter as long as you get the “right” conclusions?

P: ‘spose so.

 

[Karen107]

I want people to read this from wiki because it makes some pretty forthright statements.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

The scientific opinion on climate change is the overall judgment amongst scientists about whether global warming is happening, and if so, its causes and probable consequences. This scientific opinion is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.[1]

The scientific consensus is that the Earth’s climate system is unequivocally warming, and that it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[2][3][4][5]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[6]
Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[7]
Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]
The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]

The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]
Some scientific bodies have recommended specific policies to governments and science can play a role in informing an effective response to climate change, however, policy decisions may require value judgements and so are not included in the scientific opinion.[11][12]

 

[sps49]

Estesbob…

Exactly! which is why we can’t pass judgement on climate change by one period of time. Climatologists would never do that. They’d look at trends over a longer period of time.

The trend is not the data, it is a simple model, like a regression model. It is the result of a numerical operation on data, but it is not a cause, or the data. We can pass judgement on a model that did not show what the physical system did,such as the time series discrepancies between the periods of time that contain the pause and the models which have the same period time series, but no pause. Trends or time series are not serving the AGW climate community very well at this time, which may be why they think they need to rely on consensus messaging.