Is Pope Francis right on climate change?

[Karen107]

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.

They have come to a consensus because all the various data, tests, research and models have pointed to the same thing. That the actions of our industrial world has caused our world to experience global warming and climate change.

 

[sps49]

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

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Th

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]

IPCC’s AR5 attribution statement:
It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.

They weasel worded the attribution to indicate that it was, in their expert (subjective) opinion that it was greater than 50%. Note that this is their “robust” declaration that “most” heating is caused by humans. That could mean 50.1%, but when you consider the uncertainties involved, the best they can claim is 50%, and they cannot objectively prove that. It is a political declaration, a consensus declaration, not a scientific one. In any other field, they’d keep their traps shut until better data and analysis were available.

 

[sps49]

They have come to a consensus because all the various data, tests, research and models have pointed to the same thing. That the actions of our industrial world has caused our world to experience global warming and climate change.

The data do not support an objective finding. They used “expert opinion” to justify a subjective finding, which does not need to be supported by the data, because they are, in their words, “experts.” Many disagree.

 

[estesbob]

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

No- that is what alarmist are saying. There is no evidence we .are receiving more or more severe storms than we have in the past

 

[Karen107]

IPCC’s AR5 attribution statement:
It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.

They weasel worded the attribution to indicate that it was, in their expert (subjective) opinion that it was greater than 50%. Note that this is their “robust” declaration that “most” heating is caused by humans. That could mean 50.1%, but when you consider the uncertainties involved, the best they can claim is 50%, and they cannot objectively prove that. It is a political declaration, a consensus declaration, not a scientific one. In any other field, they’d keep their traps shut until better data and analysis were available.

How well were we monitoring climate change in the 50s through 70s? I would say in the 50s things were looking pretty good to most… Not now! What happened? I mean we had cars that were raging fumes out the back of them in the 50s and cars and industry began multiplying… that would be a good reason for the increases in greenhouse gases and global temperatures wouldn’t it? Couldn’t studies be feasibly done that would trace back the effects of global warming to what we were doing at the time even if climatologists didn’t measure our world as precisely as they do now??

 

[Karen107]

No- that is what alarmist are saying. There is no evidence we .are receiving more or more severe storms than we have in the past

No that’s what the scientists are saying. Yes we are experiencing more frequent and severe storms. More drought, more flooding, stronger storms, the list goes on.

 

[sps49]

How well were we monitoring climate change in the 50s through 70s? I would say in the 50s things were looking pretty good to most… Not now! What happened? I mean we had cars that were raging fumes out the back of them in the 50s and cars and industry began multiplying… that would be a good reason for the increases in greenhouse gases and global temperatures wouldn’t it? Couldn’t studies be feasibly done that would trace back the effects of global warming to what we were doing at the time even if climatologists didn’t measure our world as precisely as they do now??

No. The reason is entropy. Too much information has been lost on the energy state of the planet since that time. Sure, so-called back-casting could be performed, but it is only a glorified form of curve fitting, and you can fit anything to a curve, but that wont tell you the why’s. The precision is important, but so is the absolute value, when measuring or characterizing planetary energy flows.

The fact that CO2 emissions have a coincidental or time correlation with surface temperatures is not evidence of causation. As mentioned previously, the climate system is not an “all things being equal” model, where you get to hold all variables constant whilst you tune one, CO2, and then watch the results. It is much more complex than that, and impenetrable to simple closed form solutions. That is one reason there is a severe divergence problem with models that purport to simulate climate, sensitivity to initial conditions, inadequate knowledge of system states, and reliance on parametrizations to keep them stable enough to complete a data run.

 

[Ender]

But earlier you said…

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

I wasn’t discussing their motivations; I condemned their actions. I challenged what they did, not why they did it.

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…

Here’s an example of the problem I cited earlier when I called out the actions of AGW supporters. One of the problems that turned up a few years ago was that one person had become the gatekeeper for virtually every single entry in Wiki that even touched on the subject of global warming. He had edited and controlled the comments appearing in roughly 5000 Wiki entries.

Here’s another problem. One of the surveys from the entry you cited was by Anderegg et al. They “found” that about 98% of serious climate scientists “support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” What was their methodology? They “reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers, based on authorship of scientific assessment reports and membership on multisignatory statements.” The problem with this is twofold: first, the AGW crowd routinely reference one another’s papers, and second, that same group aggressively manipulated the peer review process to prevent the publication of papers challenging their conclusions. This is another fact that came out from the release of the UEA emails. All in all, the mendacity of certain members of the AGW community is rather spectacular.

Ender

 

[Karen107]

Well obviously you peeps aren’t going to change your minds overnight by us but I think we owe it to the Pope, the poor, the children, and the future generations to keep an open mind.

May God bless you all…

 

[sps49]

Well obviously you peeps aren’t going to change your minds overnight by us but I think we owe it to the Pope, the poor, the children, and the future generations to keep an open mind.

May God bless you all…

The same may be said of you when it comes to “changing minds.” it has not been established that your proposition is the plausible one.

 

[Ender]

No that’s what the scientists are saying. Yes we are experiencing more frequent and severe storms. More drought, more flooding, stronger storms, the list goes on.

You state these things as if they were in fact truths rather than unproven assertions. Take storms for example. There is no convincing evidence that either hurricanes or tornadoes are stronger or more frequent than before. These are simply scary claims unsubstantiated by the data. Earlier I posted a graph of US hurricane data which showed no such increase. Here is a graph of US tornado data which, again, refutes your assertion. You are simply repeating things you have heard with no idea of whether or not they are true. You accept them on faith, and you are being misled.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/ef3ef5t.png

Ender

 

[Karen107]

You state these things as if they were in fact truths rather than unproven assertions. Take storms for example. There is no convincing evidence that either hurricanes or tornadoes are stronger or more frequent than before. These are simply scary claims unsubstantiated by the data. Earlier I posted a graph of US hurricane data which showed no such increase. Here is a graph of US tornado data which, again, refutes your assertion. You are simply repeating things you have heard with no idea of whether or not they are true. You accept them on faith, and you are being misled.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/ef3ef5t.png

Ender

Golly I wish you’d leave links… I do see it is from NOAA so you must think NOAAs data is accurate…

Just saying. NOAA also reports more frequent tornadoes.

ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tornadoes/201506

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Global temps from NOAA

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

A lot of time is needed to put up these graphs. I sure don’t have that kind of time…

 

[Karen107]

This is what I have been talking about.

For the first half of 2015 there have been 803 preliminary tornado reports. There were 41 confirmed tornadoes during January-March, with 762 preliminary tornado reports pending for April-June. This is near the 1991-2010 average number of tornadoes for January-June of 818. The year-to-date tornado count is the most since the hyperactive tornado year of 2011.

In Illinois we’ve felt it.

The most active tornado day during June was the 22nd as an upper-level low pressure system moved from the Northern Plains into the Midwest. There were 25 preliminary tornado reports across the Midwest from Iowa to Michigan. Twelve tornadoes were confirmed in northern Illinois, ten of which were spawned from a single, long-lived supercell thunderstorm that tracked across six counties. The strongest tornado of the outbreak was an EF-3 that tracked across Grundy and Will counties in Illinois, with maximum winds of 160 mph. This was the strongest tornado to impact Grundy County since July 1972. During the entire outbreak, there were 14 reported injuries, but no fatalities. The storms also caused significant flash flooding, with three to five inches of rain falling in a few hours across already saturated soils.

ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tornadoes/201506

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Cross-X of Dr. P–conclusion (to summarize a lengthy transcript)

Because of P’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge the fundamental flaws and numerous failings of the IPCC review process, FOC pressed on, using the sad and sorry case of Michael Mann, laying the groundwork for the following summary:

The Hockey Stick scandal does much to illuminate the corrupt inner workings of the general climate science community. Michael Mann was patently guilty of misrepresenting his data and methods. He failed to disclose adverse results. He was guilty of impeding the all-important scientific function of replication. He was slow to release all his data, he refused to release his computer code for his statistical analysis until finally compelled to do so by a congressional subpoena, and he completely failed to release other critical details about how he constructed his graph. To this day some aspects of his methods are a still a mystery. In his testimony before a scientific panel he spoke falsely about his verification statistics.

Yet the establishment covered for him and aided and abetted his misconduct. The Climategate emails reveal that his own colleagues knew that Mann’s work was defective (one called it “sloppy”), but they still rallied around him. The prestigious journal Nature refused to publish Stephen McIntyre’s comment, which was critical of Mann’s paper, because it was too long. Journal editors and even the National Science Foundation told Mann’s auditors that Mann did not have to release his computer code because it was “private property.” Journal editors flouted their own rules in an attempt to thwart McIntyre’s investigation and rehabilitate the Hockey Stick. The National Academy of Sciences panel convened to evaluate his work supported Mann’s conclusions even though it agreed with McIntyre that some of Mann’s data was unsuitable and his methods were unreliable.

But today Mann’s reputation is untarnished. He is showered with honors and speaking engagements. A scientific community with any integrity would have banished him.

In a court of law a jury may disbelieve a witness if it finds the witness is biased, has lied, or is guilty of serious misconduct. The testimony of an expert scientific witness can be discounted if it shown that his expertise has been misrepresented or he does not adhere to the disciplines of science. With respect to the IPCC and the climate science establishment in general, all of these grounds are present, and a responsible and rational jury will reject their claims. Rather than accepting their sentencing recommendations, we should be demanding a new trial.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Very Scientific Poll:

I would like to ask fans of the carbon dioxide theory of climate change (esp. Lynn and Karen), if the devastating takedown of Dr. P (see posts 166, 171, 195,200,207-208, 296, 312) has caused your trust in the climate science establishment led by the IPCC to be a) even greater, b) the same, c) somewhat less, or d) a lot less?

If you select a) or b), please 'splain yerself.

cordially,

ferd

 

[sps49]

This is what I have been talking about.

For the first half of 2015 there have been 803 preliminary tornado reports. There were 41 confirmed tornadoes during January-March, with 762 preliminary tornado reports pending for April-June. This is near the 1991-2010 average number of tornadoes for January-June of 818. The year-to-date tornado count is the most since the hyperactive tornado year of 2011.

In Illinois we’ve felt it.

The most active tornado day during June was the 22nd as an upper-level low pressure system moved from the Northern Plains into the Midwest. There were 25 preliminary tornado reports across the Midwest from Iowa to Michigan. Twelve tornadoes were confirmed in northern Illinois, ten of which were spawned from a single, long-lived supercell thunderstorm that tracked across six counties. The strongest tornado of the outbreak was an EF-3 that tracked across Grundy and Will counties in Illinois, with maximum winds of 160 mph. This was the strongest tornado to impact Grundy County since July 1972. During the entire outbreak, there were 14 reported injuries, but no fatalities. The storms also caused significant flash flooding, with three to five inches of rain falling in a few hours across already saturated soils.

ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tornadoes/201506

The number of tornadoes, per month, year, decade, by type, etc., has been affected by different reporting methods over the years. There are recent studies that claim that after reporting bias adjustments there is a slight negative, slight positive, and no trend observed since 1950. This was pointed out in the public comments of the 2014 draft of the National Climate Assessment.

This means evidence that AGW is responsible for increased frequency, magnitude or damage caused by tornadoes during the reporting period is equivocal at best, and most likely not at all.

 

[estesbob]

Well obviously you peeps aren’t going to change your minds overnight by us but I think we owe it to the Pope, the poor, the children, and the future generations to keep an open mind.

May God bless you all…

So will massive increases in the price of energy help or hurt the poor?

 

[estesbob]

This is what I have been talking about.

For the first half of 2015 there have been 803 preliminary tornado reports. There were 41 confirmed tornadoes during January-March, with 762 preliminary tornado reports pending for April-June. This is near the 1991-2010 average number of tornadoes for January-June of 818. The year-to-date tornado count is the most since the hyperactive tornado year of 2011.

In Illinois we’ve felt it.

The most active tornado day during June was the 22nd as an upper-level low pressure system moved from the Northern Plains into the Midwest. There were 25 preliminary tornado reports across the Midwest from Iowa to Michigan. Twelve tornadoes were confirmed in northern Illinois, ten of which were spawned from a single, long-lived supercell thunderstorm that tracked across six counties. The strongest tornado of the outbreak was an EF-3 that tracked across Grundy and Will counties in Illinois, with maximum winds of 160 mph. This was the strongest tornado to impact Grundy County since July 1972. During the entire outbreak, there were 14 reported injuries, but no fatalities. The storms also caused significant flash flooding, with three to five inches of rain falling in a few hours across already saturated soils.

ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tornadoes/201506

What you’re describing above is “weather” .

 

[Ridgerunner]

The number of tornadoes, per month, year, decade, by type, etc., has been affected by different reporting methods over the years. There are recent studies that claim that after reporting bias adjustments there is a slight negative, slight positive, and no trend observed since 1950. This was pointed out in the public comments of the 2014 draft of the National Climate Assessment.

This means evidence that AGW is responsible for increased frequency, magnitude or damage caused by tornadoes during the reporting period is equivocal at best, and most likely not at all.

There is another thing to consider. When I was a kid, tornadoes came through the countryside now and then and never made the news. The only people who knew about them were the people in a very limited area. Sometimes nobody witnessed them at all. Now and then I would find a place in the woods where one went through, but nobody knew about it at all. Now, no tornado goes unreported. Why? First, because weather radar now picks them up, or at least the conditions for them. Second, because there are a zillion tornado chasers going out to see and report them. Third, because the population in this rather large rural area has massively increased since I was a kid. Nothing goes unseen.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So will massive increases in the price of energy help or hurt the poor?

Indisputably, it will hurt the poor, and in numerous ways. Cost of heating. Cost of refrigerating food. Cost of air conditioning when it’s hot. Cost of food. Not a single thing the poor need will be unaffected.