Is Pope Francis right on climate change?

[lileli]

Hi Lileli,

Welcome.

Please 'splain yerself.

cordially,

ferd

Climate change is happening faster than it should be due to human activity. I find it funny that so many conservative catholics that submit their wills completely to rome somehow object to this encyclical.

 

[_thaddeus]

Thank you for providing the reference. I thought I had posted it within quotes. I stand corrected.

.

You’re welcome.

It is necessary to be careful, when cutting and pasting, to properly attribute the source. Nobody wants to take credit for another person’s work.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Climate change is happening faster than it should be due to human activity. I find it funny that so many conservative catholics that submit their wills completely to rome somehow object to this encyclical.

Ok. Given the changes in the climate/temperature of the past (Ice Age, Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice age) where temperatures were warmer or colder than the current climate and without any significant man caused CO2.

How fast and in what direction ‘should’ climate change be happening?

Why have the satellites shown no warming for the past 21 years?

 

[sps49]

Climate change is happening faster than it should be due to human activity. I find it funny that so many conservative catholics that submit their wills completely to rome somehow object to this encyclical.

While we are all laughing, I also find it funny that people don’t bother to read the research papers, where they would discover that the temporal resolution of the proxies do not support the “faster than it should” claim.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

---

Exactly what Dr. James Hansen (retired NASA top climate scientist) projected back in 1981 could happen – not bad at all for a projection 34 years ago! And the Pope is no dumb bunny either!

In 1988, Hansen told (sympathetic) journalist Bob Reiss that the West Side Highway in Manhattan would be underwater within 20 or 30 years (2008-2018). In 2001, he confirmed and reiterated that claim.

While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

Didn’t he also say that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read, “Water by request only.”

Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.”

When did he say this will happen?

Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989.

Does he still believe these things?

Yes, he still believes everything. I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

You’re welcome.

It is necessary to be careful, when cutting and pasting, to properly attribute the source. Nobody wants to take credit for another person’s work.

You are absolutely right. I try to be careful and will work harder in the future.

But other than that…what do you think of Dr. Crichton’s speech?

I thought this part was very telling…

"…I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing. I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong."

 

[estesbob]

Climate change is happening faster than it should be due to human activity. I find it funny that so many conservative catholics that submit their wills completely to rome somehow object to this encyclical.

Then why has there been no warming for nearly 20 years? Why did not one single model constructed by scientists predict this?

I don’t object to the encyclical-there was nothing new in it-he reiterated what St John PauI II and Pope Benedict said-we have a responsibility to care for the environment.

I am afraid you may have some misconceptions about what submitting to Rome means. Francis himself said that the encyclical was NOT intended to be a scientific document and was not meant to settle scientific matters. he also categorically rejected the tax and regulation schemes proposed by AGW proponents

 

[Theo520]

Lynn, why do you keep posting a graph that undermines your cause?

The graph only goes to 2000 but clearly shows an accelerating increase in temps. Per the graph, the ocean may reduce the rate slightly, but it’s not creating a hiatus.

If you extend the lines to 2015, we should be smoking by now.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2590&pictureid=17591

 

[_thaddeus]

You are absolutely right. I try to be careful and will work harder in the future.

But other than that…what do you think of Dr. Crichton’s speech?

It was entertaining. Crichton should write a new novel and let mosquitoes know that it’s unpatriotic for them to become resistant to DDT.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

You should know better than me. Just list all the websites from where you get your info an AGW, and I’ll let you know which ones are into deceitful lies & truth-twisting about AGW…

Let’s start with a book, The Hockey Stick Illusion by Montford.

ferd

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Or we can go straight to MBH98, and you can answer my questions posted in the recent past. meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Read the paper! And then tell me MBH didn’t materially misrepresent their methdology and results.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Imagine that Pope Francis has just been exposed to this: youtube.com/watch?v=RxyQNEVOElU. Imagine you are his peritus and he has asked you what to make of it.

What is the antidote to this? I have my own ideas, but am interest in what y’all (including Lynn and Karen who think an antidote isn’t necessary) think.

ferd

 

[lynnvinc]

Lynn, why do you keep posting a graph that undermines your cause?

The graph only goes to 2000 but clearly shows an accelerating increase in temps. Per the graph, the ocean may reduce the rate slightly, but it’s not creating a hiatus.

If you extend the lines to 2015, we should be smoking by now.

Not with the deeper ocean uptake of the warming, which has actually been happening, according to two of Hansen’s projections way back 34 years ago. And it accounts for the “hiatus” of surface temps not warming much over the past 13 to 16 years.

I guess you missed the main part of my post…

---

Another indication that Pope Francis is right on CC:

Nieves, et al. 2015. “Recent hiatus caused by decadal shift in Indo-Pacific heating” Science Vol. 349 no. 6247 pp. 532-535, DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa4521

EDITOR’S SUMMARY: “Looking for the missing heat” – Global warming apparently slowed, or even stopped, during the first decade of the 21st century. This pause is commonly called the “hiatus.” We know, however, that Earth’s climate system is accumulating excess solar energy owing to the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Where, then, has this energy gone if not into the air? Nieves et al. find that over this period, the surface Pacific Ocean has cooled but the upper Indian and Southern Oceans have warmed. Thus, the decade-long hiatus that began in 2003 would appear to be the result of a redistribution of heat within the ocean, rather than a change in the whole-Earth warming rate.

ABSTRACT: Recent modeling studies have proposed different scenarios to explain the slowdown in surface temperature warming in the most recent decade. Some of these studies seem to support the idea of internal variability and/or rearrangement of heat between the surface and the ocean interior. Others suggest that radiative forcing might also play a role. Our examination of observational data over the past two decades shows some significant differences when compared to model results from reanalyses and provides the most definitive explanation of how the heat was redistributed. We find that cooling in the top 100-meter layer of the Pacific Ocean was mainly compensated for by warming in the 100- to 300-meter layer of the Indian and Pacific Oceans in the past decade since 2003.

---

So much for your idea of CO2 sensitivity being at the low end of the range…

 

[Theo520]

Imagine that Pope Francis has just been exposed to this: youtube.com/watch?v=RxyQNEVOElU. Imagine you are his peritus and he has asked you what to make of it.

What is the antidote to this? I have my own ideas, but am interest in what y’all (including Lynn and Karen who think an antidote isn’t necessary) think.

ferd

Right from the get go, she’s playing with a strawman - skeptics don’t deny the earth has been getting warmer and man is contributing to some degree.

Scientists are renowned for questioning other scientists, even outside their field. Also, her line of reason rapidly disintegrates when you acknowledge there are qualified scientists on both sides of the debate WITHIN THE FIELD. I guess we are just supposed to believe her camp on faith and shun the outsiders?

She described the scientific method but did not touch upon why the climate models are failing the third step, when models are compared against measurement and found lacking. It’s telling that her chart comparing **Modeled **vs **Observed **stopped in 1990 and excluded the recent pause . I guess she only looks at data that validates her strawman.

Pascal’s Wager is misrepresented as well. Belief is not free or just a personal opinion, it comes with enormous costs to society. Pascal’s Wager fundamentally assumes there is minimal cost associated with accepting God.

 

[Theo520]

Your graph projects an exponentially increasing temperature, your graph doesn’t support your words.

Not with the deeper ocean uptake of the warming, which has actually been happening, according to two of Hansen’s projections way back 34 years ago. And it accounts for the “hiatus” of surface temps not warming much over the past 13 to 16 years.

I guess you missed the main part of my post…

---

…

 

[lynnvinc]

Your graph projects an exponentially increasing temperature, your graph doesn’t support your words.

Sorry, but the 34 year old graph (primitive by today’s standards, plus computer power back in 1981 was not near what it is today) only goes up to the year 2000, and the temps it shows for that year with the deeper ocean uptake of the warming (the bottom line) are lower than actual observations. I don’t think Hansen is making any claims post-2000, but even if you extrapolate to 2015, it would still be lower than observed temps.

As for it being somewhat of an exponential or quadratic curve, well, it is possible he was also aware of the clathrate shotgun hypothesis – see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis – since it is actually needed to help explain the extreme warming during the PETM (55 mya) and other extreme warmings of the past. Also elsewhere Hansen has mentioned that the shotgun this time (unlike during the PETM) is much more fully “loaded” with methane.

IOW, the extreme levels of heat reached cannot be explained solely by the earth’s wobble or orbital shifts; the initial warming triggered vast release of methane (which degrades into CO2 within about 10 yrs) from melting permafrost and ocean hydrates. So maybe he was expecting not only a business-as-usual path of people going hog wild in emitting GHGs, but also the initial warming from that triggering vast methane releases…

 

[Theo520]

Lynn, your graph doesn’t compare it’s projection against actuals so not sure how you validate its been accurate.

What I can confirm is Hansen’s NASA model has been shown a failure. According to theory, we should be tracking to the bright green line instead of the blue line

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01bb07ec1576970d-700wi

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Right from the get go, she’s playing with a strawman - skeptics don’t deny the earth has been getting warmer and man is contributing to some degree.

Scientists are renowned for questioning other scientists, even outside their field. Also, her line of reason rapidly disintegrates when you acknowledge there are qualified scientists on both sides of the debate WITHIN THE FIELD. I guess we are just supposed to believe her camp on faith and shun the outsiders?

She described the scientific method but did not touch upon why the climate models are failing the third step, when models are compared against measurement and found lacking. It’s telling that her chart comparing **Modeled **vs **Observed **stopped in 1990 and excluded the recent pause . I guess she only looks at data that validates her strawman.

Pascal’s Wager is misrepresented as well. Belief is not free or just a personal opinion, it comes with enormous costs to society. Pascal’s Wager fundamentally assumes there is minimal cost associated with accepting God.

I think she asks the right question: Why should we trust scientists? She also correctly observes that scientists have to trust each other. The whole enterprise depends on trust.

But then she says things, admittedly to an audience of lay folks, which are patently untrue and misleading, as you’ve pointed out. I would also cite her comment about the models incorporating all the factors which determine global temperature. the modelers themselves will admit that isn’t true.

She admits that it ultimately rests on an appeal to authority, but not just any old authority, but rather to the authority of the crowd. IOW, scientific authority is trustworthy because it represent the collective and cumulative wisdom of very smart people.

But she is talking about science in general, and she is trying to cloak climate science with the respectability of the whole scientific enterprise, which we know works. But it doesn’t work well, we know, at all times, in all places, and in all disciplines.

Oreskes is a well-known cheerleader for the climate science establishment led by the IPCC. IOW, a propagandist. I wish I could sit her down and ask her questions like: What about the Hockey Stick scandal, what about climategate, shenanigans and fiddling with the temperature record,… Shouldn’t scientists acting badly be grounds for not trusting them? Why should we trust the IPCC given what we know about their corrupt process?..

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

But I am afraid that our Pontiff’s periti on climate change are folks like Oreskes and worse. Udderwise he would have a more balanced view. And his palace guard have been actively excluding skeptics to ensure Francis only hears one side.

but as has been pointed, he is predisposed against capitalism and industrialization from the get-go. Poor CO2 didn’t have a chance with this pope, I am afraid.