Is Pope Francis right on climate change?

[7_Sorrows]

The reason that AGW cause both droughts and floods is simply hydrology. Warmer air holds more water vapor, it sucks out water from water bodies, plants, and soil, desiccating them, making areas more vulnerable to wild fires. Air patterns may take the moisture elsewhere. Under certain weather conditions that moisture can come down as deluges. AGW is actually causing more precipitation overall – which also means greater blizzards during winters in the north. And the melt from snow, ice, and glaciers can contribute to flooding.

Warm sea surface temps are a necessary (but not sufficient) factor in hurricanes, which are increasing in intensity as in the Philippines. It’s a matter of increased heat energy turning into increased kinetic energy.

weather patterns change and climate changes. I have lived in the mountains for 8 years. the second winter up here we had more snow than they have had since 1968. the other 7 winters were really cold, but not much moisture. There hasn’t been a warming trend for 8 years.
I think you are getting worked up for nothing. An ebola epidemic could happen in the next 5 years and kill 200 million people or we could have a nuclear war that could kill 200 million people or a meteor could strike our planet. A lot of things could happen before 2030. I don’t see 100 million or even 50 million people losing their life because of global warming by 2030. I may not live to see 2030, but I don’t think it will be because of global warming.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Fred I hope you can see the other side to this. I would say the unsavory interest groups are the ones who are profitting off of the way things are and don’t want to be ‘bothered’ by acting on climate change because it’s going to hit them in their pocketbooks. So it’s about greed and big money at stake. …

Hi Karen,

Yes I can see the other side, and I do read what they have to say. It’s just that I find them increasingly not credible. This is due to the building scientific case against AGW, to be sure, but it is also due in no small part to the bad conduct of climate science establishment led by the IPCC.

Could I ask you this: Why do you and the Holy Father find the IPCC so credible?

cordially,

ferd

 

[sps49]

The ‘global’ temperatures have indeed risen and we know this because they have been measured. Just look at the amount of carbon that’s been sent up into the atmosphere since 1950s. And on that link summarizes the evidence for global warming. Click on the links to see the facts.

climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Umm, that is still very much an open question. The “facts” say something different, beginning with the uncertainties of knowledge of planetary energy flows. These uncertainties are so large that we do not know what the “average temperature” of the earth is. This makes it impossible, at this time to be able to discern the differences between natural variation and so-called AGW effects.

The link you provided is an unfortunate example of the politicization of science. Carbon has indeed been added to the atmosphere, but that does not mean that catastrophic AGW is occurring, or will occur. As always , I await compelling evidence, which at this time does not exist.

 

[MatthewTrainor]

Now if there are less plants due to deforestation and development, there would be more CO2

This premise is false. Deforestation has a negligible effect on atmospheric CO2 levels because the vast majority of photosynthesis occurs within the oceanic phytoplankton. Also, most deforestation is combined with reforestation in other areas. (If all the reported rates of deforestation were true then without replacement all trees would have been extinct a long time ago) The fact of the matter is that when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, trees grow faster and bigger.

The balance of your post is simply a list of the typical chicken little disaster warnings we hear from the AGW crowd that never come true and have no factual support. Always the predictions of droughts and floods. AGW proponents claim it causes more snowfall in the winter, not realizing that more snow = less drought as aquifers, surface and ground water are all recharged by snow melt.

Bottom line: CO2 is a natural and necessary part of life. It is atmospheric plant fertilizer. The increases predicted by the most alarmist of the AGW folks relate to a miniscule fraction of the atmosphere as a whole. If CO2 were about to become 10% - 20% of our atmosphere then it would be a problem, fortunately our floral allies won’t let it get that far. IMO, a warmer planet with slightly higher ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere would do nothing but create a lush paradise with higher crop yields in the expanding arable land that will end hunger and reduce strife.

The natural way is the godly way, the unnatural 'mans way is the ungodly way

Is it your position that man is not part of nature?

 

[7_Sorrows]

This premise is false. Deforestation has a negligible effect on atmospheric CO2 levels because the vast majority of photosynthesis occurs within the oceanic phytoplankton. Also, most deforestation is combined with reforestation in other areas. (If all the reported rates of deforestation were true then without replacement all trees would have been extinct a long time ago) The fact of the matter is that when there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, trees grow faster and bigger.

The balance of your post is simply a list of the typical chicken little disaster warnings we hear from the AGW crowd that never come true and have no factual support. Always the predictions of droughts and floods. AGW proponents claim it causes more snowfall in the winter, not realizing that more snow = less drought as aquifers, surface and ground water are all recharged by snow melt.

Bottom line: CO2 is a natural and necessary part of life. It is atmospheric plant fertilizer. The increases predicted by the most alarmist of the AGW folks relate to a miniscule fraction of the atmosphere as a whole. If CO2 were about to become 10% - 20% of our atmosphere then it would be a problem, fortunately our floral allies won’t let it get that far. IMO, a warmer planet with slightly higher ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere would do nothing but create a lush paradise with higher crop yields in the expanding arable land that will end hunger and reduce strife.

Is it your position that man is not part of nature?

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

Matthew and Karen,

I would add that the global warming driven mania for “sustainable” energy is, itself, causing deforestation in parts of Asia where the production of palm oil is ramping up.

 

[ferdgoodfellow]

I live in the upper midwest where we have been plowing up grassland so we can grow more corn to put in our gas tanks as ethanol, a supposedly sustainable and eco-friendly fuel. Anudder example.

 

[Karen107]

Hi Karen,

Yes I can see the other side, and I do read what they have to say. It’s just that I find them increasingly not credible. This is due to the building scientific case against AGW, to be sure, but it is also due in no small part to the bad conduct of climate science establishment led by the IPCC.

Could I ask you this: Why do you and the Holy Father find the IPCC so credible?

cordially,

ferd

Ferd…

Because I believe the experts in the field, I personally know physicists, scientists and environmentalists who have been involved in studying this first hand and I have listened to what they have to say. . I just had a conversation with one scientist who just came back from studying this in Antarctica. I have learned what is expected of me to keep the CO2 levels down, I’ve been doing my best for health reasons and for religious reasons to live in a sustainable way and a more healthy natural way. I believe that God wants us to be caretakers of our planet and live in a more natural way and the price for not doing so is our destruction, the most vulnerable being the first to be affected.

I live in the metropolitan area of Chicago where we do make lifestyle changes in order to cut our emissions down. I’ve made myself aware of this problem by keeping informed and learning about this. I believe the experts especially as they are speaking in an united voice loud and clear. I can tell Lynn has some expertise on the matter and the responses she’s gotten really weren’t warranted. I have been saying the same things as her but in my way. As I have said before we experience bad storms here in Illinois and I believe they are due to the warming of the oceans “evaporation” causing the waters to go aloft, then hitting the cold front coming down from the north and coming down in deluges. Which is why we’ve had more severe weather for several years now. This summer we had storm after storm after storm, not just piddly rains, but violent storms. I met one fella from California (where they have drought) just amazed at them. Havent you heard about all the tornados that’s been happening in the midwest? There was a couple quite close to me this year with fatalities. I believe it is possible that 100 million could be killed by year 2030 because we’re on that path when you think about Katrina, Joplin, Japan, the Phillippines, etc. I believe that those on the oceans are vulnerable and there are many cities on the oceans so it’s a big concern. I go to museums in Chicago where there are whole exhibits on this. I subscribe to National Geographic and I have watched several documentaries on this.

Not to mention what’s going on in Louisiana where the coast has now changed it’s borders, Superstorm Sandy coming into NYC. I went to NYC last year and saw where the ocean had elevated. All these things I’ve been paying attention to and I believe the Pope and the scientists are spot on.

Okay so why am I not a skeptic? Because of all that and more. I asked earlier if anyone has read the Popes encyclical which is available online? I believe as Catholics we should before we rush to judgment. Thank you for listening and have a great day!

 

[Karen107]

Is it your position that man is not part of nature?

Man is supposed to be the caretakers of the planet, and be one with it. That’s sustainable living. We’re smart enough to do it as long as people cooperate.

 

[Karen107]

To Matthews post…

Photoplankton suffers as the oceans water gets warmer and more acidic. And many areas will not be able to regrow forests, especially in areas suffering drought. Ever try to make a new forest? I have, and its a very complicated process.

 

[MatthewTrainor]

Man is supposed to be the caretakers of the planet, and be one with it. That’s sustainable living. We’re smart enough to do it as long as people cooperate.

I agree with that 100%, but you and I may have different opinions on what our precise responsibilities are as caretakers. I do not believe that we are charged with the responsibility of preventing the extinction of every species currently in existence. Some species have taken a wrong evolutionary turn and are on their way out, that’s just how it is. For example, I do not think that strangling California’s water supply to protect what may literally be a handful of smelt is an appropriate exercise of our caretaker duties. Maybe the smelt should have learned to spawn in a variety of streams.

Back to AGW, I do not believe the evidence supports the theory that man is even capable of deliberately causing the apocalyptic changes predicted merely by emitting CO2 into the atmosphere, let alone doing so unintentionally. Even if slightly higher atmospheric CO2 does cause a measurable increase in global temperatures, I don’t see that as a bad thing.

 

[hu324b]

Yes this is a huge conspiracy without one once of truth that has even fooled the Pope.

Not

 

[MatthewTrainor]

Photoplankton suffers as the oceans water gets warmer and more acidic.

That is true, but the oceans are very big and establishing an accurate count of swarms of microorganisms has been difficult to achieve. Besides, NOAA seems more worried about instances of too much phytoplankton rather than not enough.

When too many nutrients are available, phytoplankton may grow out of control and form harmful algal blooms (HABs).
source

As I mentioned before, one of the primary nutrients for phytoplankton is CO2.

And many areas will not be able to regrow forests, especially in areas suffering drought.

Yeah, if only we could divert water that routinely runs from the mountains into the sea to areas that are suffering from drought…

 

[rmartensjr]

By using less coal-powered energy and reducing our ICE car driving and getting more efficient cars or EVs even, we will also reduce the harms…

Where do you think the electricity comes from to power your wonderful EV (electric vehicle), the Electricity Fairy? No, it comes from coal-powered power plants! :banghead:

 

[SuperLuigi]

Because I believe the experts in the field, I personally know physicists, scientists and environmentalists who have been involved in studying this first hand and I have listened to what they have to say.

.

Does this comment mean to say we should believe people just because we know them? I know a lot of people like that too, no in the least since I am one of them, and I don’t take everything they say at face value, especially when government grants come into play.

I have learned what is expected of me to keep the CO2 levels down,

I’ve been doing my best for health reasons and for religious reasons to live in a sustainable way and a more healthy natural way.

Quite a few of the “solutions” to climate change are sustainable but are actually MORE harmful to the environment than what we are doing now.

I live in the metropolitan area of Chicago where we do make lifestyle changes in order to cut our emissions down. I’ve made myself aware of this problem by keeping informed and learning about this. I believe the experts especially as they are speaking in an united voice loud and clear. I can tell Lynn has some expertise on the matter and the responses she’s gotten really weren’t warranted. I have been saying the same things as her but in my way. As I have said before we experience bad storms here in Illinois and I believe they are due to the warming of the oceans “evaporation” causing the waters to go aloft, then hitting the cold front coming down from the north and coming down in deluges. Which is why we’ve had more severe weather for several years now. This summer we had storm after storm after storm, not just piddly rains, but violent storms. I met one fella from California (where they have drought) just amazed at them. Havent you heard about all the tornados that’s been happening in the midwest? There was a couple quite close to me this year with fatalities. I believe it is possible that 100 million could be killed by year 2030 because we’re on that path when you think about Katrina, Joplin, Japan, the Phillippines, etc. I believe that those on the oceans are vulnerable and there are many cities on the oceans so it’s a big concern. I go to museums in Chicago where there are whole exhibits on this. I subscribe to National Geographic and I have watched several documentaries on this.

Heat and tornadoes in the Midwest in summer. That’s normal.

National Geographic is not a good source for this, nor is just talking to people.

Not to mention what’s going on in Louisiana where the coast has now changed it’s borders, Superstorm Sandy coming into NYC. I went to NYC last year and saw where the ocean had elevated. All these things I’ve been paying attention to and I believe the Pope and the scientists are spot on.

I very, very much doubt any of that had anything to do with human activity. But since there’s talking to other people going on, I would suggest asking all of these AGW elites why they are buying all this beach-front property if the seas are rising so quickly.

Okay so why am I not a skeptic? Because of all that and more. I asked earlier if anyone has read the Popes encyclical which is available online? I believe as Catholics we should before we rush to judgment. Thank you for listening and have a great day!

The Pope has said that climate change is not the same as abortion, which of course dents the idea of “I’m voting for anti-religious liberty, pro-choice, anti-marriage Democrats because we’re aborting the environment. And and plus, that means I can look in front of my secular colleagues and friends.”

 

[SuperLuigi]

Actually, global cooling was never popular among scientists. Only a tiny percentage thought it was possible.
It is one of those lies (like climategate etc) that was proven false.

Climategate was never proven false.

 

[lynnvinc]

They “tweaked” the numbers and surprise surprise the numbers now showed a warming trend . Meanwhile satellite measurement of temperature likewise shows no warming for over 20 years…

Which is expected, since higher altitude temps above the GHG belt are actually expected to go down (since less heat is being radiated above that belt, while more heat is being radiated below it), so when you mix temps from various places in the atmosphere, you’ll end up getting those results. Not to mention certain people getting and using those satellite measurements are bent on deceiving people and are well paid by the fossil fuel industry to do so.

I too want to air on the side of prudence and caution which why I’m not willing to buy into the massive tax & regulations schemes proposed by those who promote AGW. It would be devastating to the poor and have little effect on the climate, if any

Did I or the Pope ask you to pay more taxes? What is asked is to reduce one’s environmental “footprint,” live more lightly and gently on Earth. And that, my friend, SAVES MONEY, and for the most part without lowering ones living standards or productivity…if one is wise enough to do it the right ways rather than in convoluted wrong ways. Prayer helps greatly in this.

 

[MatthewTrainor]

Yes. He believes in science and does not believe that every scientific organization in the world (NASA,Royal Academy, American Meteorological Society…) are part of a conspiracy. He is a rational man and so of course he acknowledges AGW.

Very few people believe that there is a vast conspiracy involving the various government funded scientific organizations since no conspiracy (getting together to agree) is necessary. All governments seek to increase their power over their subjects. All of them. Those in power also know that an impending global catastrophe that will be caused by mankind will enable them to increase their power and control much more than a natural climactic cycle that mankind can do little to change. Therefore government funding for scientific research into the phenomenon tends to be a bit tilted to one side. There is always the implicit: give us the answer we want or your funding dries up. If government funded scientists consistently reported that “Hey, the climate changes, get used to it,” does anyone seriously think their annual budgets would anywhere near their current level?! Of course not. Politicians are willing to pay big bucks for apocalyptic predictions that require immediate government intervention into the day to day lives of every citizen, and that’s exactly what they get.

Pope Francis is not infallible on scientific issues and and he certainly wouldn’t be the first to simply follow the consensus opinion of many scientists (Pope Paul V did the same in his time). The moral thrust of his encyclical, that we have a responsibility to be aware of the unintended effects of our actions and take care to minimize any negative consequences, is valid, but any specific prescriptions based on factual assumptions are subject to challenge and debate.

 

[estesbob]

Which is expected, since higher altitude temps above the GHG belt are actually expected to go down (since less heat is being radiated above that belt, while more heat is being radiated below it), so when you mix temps from various places in the atmosphere, you’ll end up getting those results. Not to mention certain people getting and using those satellite measurements are bent on deceiving people and are well paid by the fossil fuel industry to do so.

Did I or the Pope ask you to pay more taxes? What is asked is to reduce one’s environmental “footprint,” live more lightly and gently on Earth. And that, my friend, SAVES MONEY, and for the most part without lowering ones living standards or productivity…if one is wise enough to do it the right ways rather than in convoluted wrong ways. Prayer helps greatly in this.

Satellites also measure surface temperature. They don’t need to be “tweaked” which is why AGW proponents are loathe to use them. We only have then available for the last 20 years and they show no warming

The Pope was clear that we should NOT embrace the “solutions” offered by AGW proponents. Again one can totally support protecting the environment without buting into AGW.

 

[lynnvinc]

…Heat and tornadoes in the Midwest in summer. That’s normal. …

Climate scientists have never claimed that there were no heat waves and tornadoes in the past, only that increased global warming would make increased intensity of these more likely – as in loading the dice.

That’s already happening and can be attributed to AGW. For tornadoes, storms and hurricanes, it is a matter of more heat energy turning into greater kinetic energy.

One extra issue with heat waves is that in the past the nights would be more cool, allowing people, animals, and plants to recuperate during the night.

With the enhanced GH effect there is an enhanced “blanket effect” during the night & the minimum diurnal temps (the low during the night) have been increasing faster than maximum diurnal temps (the high during the day) – which is a unique signature that the warming is from the GH effect, not cosmic rays or solar spots, etc – and this is what is causing greater deaths and crop damage. They figure that half of the 70,000 heat-related deaths in Europe in the summer of 2003 can be attributed to AGW.