Pope Francis' upcoming climate change encyclical 'Laudato Sii' (Praised Be)

[Theo520]

It’s sort of weird but when you think about how much money has been spent on science and Pi is still 3.14159, and the universal gravitational constant is still 6.67384 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

It’s funny how you make my point for me, by giving two examples of settled science. If they were as settled as ‘climate science’ then they would give ranges like the below:

• Pi is probably between 1.5 and 4.5. While the midpoint is 3.0, we no longer say that is our most likely estimate (we are too uncertain). Have fun with your geometry calculations anything goes!
• The big G is 90% probable to be between 3.3 and 10 (× 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2). Maybe in another 25yrs and with a trillion $ more in research, we’ll come up with a more accurate estimate.

If you look at what the scientists are actually saying, they have a bell-shaped curve, with 3 being the most likely and 1.5 and 4.5 being on the very less likely tails. However they do point out the positive tail is somewhat long and fat…

NO Lynn, that is not what the IPCC is stating. In fact, they stopped giving a ‘most likely’ estimate because they lack certainty. Prove I’m wrong by linking to this bell shaped curve with 'best estimate’

There are several sources, including paleoclimatology, for their calculations. I do know it is a log relationship…the sensitivity decreasing with much greater CO2 levels.

Also note, that is just the sensitivity, and not how much it will warm within a century…which also has to do with GHG levels, which as I mentioned could start coming in massive amounts from melting permafrost and ocean hydrates, if not this century, then perhaps the next. This is already increasing…and it’s like we’re a bunch of silly school kids poking a sleeping dragon.

This was a very lame deflection that in no way explained why the IPCC has not improved the accuracy of their estimate for climate sensitivity, after 25 yrs of intensive study.

Hope that helps clarify it for you. If not, then I would suggest reading some books on climate change and contacting some scientists about it (and not fossil-fuel-funded hacks or “blog science”).

You know some people have lives and cannot be on CAF all the time and answer all questions – esp over and over and over and over and over again. My husband, a very good Catholic, even considers it is sin to waste time on blogs…

Lynn, the fact is you repeat your ‘talking points’ but you don’t address actual questions, you are more like a religious fanatic repeating ill understood dogma than a theologian debating the issues presented.

 

[Ender]

AGW is NOT based on models, it’s based on the laws of physics and actual rising global average temps – which do not increase in a strictly increasing way, and no climate scientist has EVER claimed that would be the case, due to the other factors that impact the global climate. It is a matter of a long term trend, which is why it took decades before they claimed at 95% confidence in 1995 that AGW was indeed happening.

Whether you insist that AGW is based on the models or the models are based on AGW, the relevant point surely must be that the models have made a major miscalculation: what they predicted has not happened. The assertion that it was only in 1995 that they claimed to have reached the 95% confidence level is truly ironic, since it was only a few years later that their models began to decompose. This just goes to show that claiming something is easy; it is demonstrating the accuracy of the claim that is difficult.

The models are helpful for a very complex, multi-variable situation involving several of earth’s systems, mainly to give us some heads up re what to expect.

If the models are wrong then it is because our understanding is wrong.

Not sure where you got your data, but AGW has continued as the last deep & longer solar minimum is over, and other factors.

There is no statistically significant change in the Earth’s temperature over the last 18 years.

Why not ask some climate scientists about the issue and doubts, if the Pope’s encyclical has not clarified it enough.

Der Spiegel did just that in their interview with von Storch. Among other things he said this:*So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We’re facing a puzzle…This is a serious scientific problem *

I’ve had no problem over the past 30 years in accepting that AGW is real and has tremendous threats to life on earth (perhaps due to my excellent science education in HS, and books I read back in the 50s that explained the GH effect).

And I have no problem rejecting the idea that AGW is real, not because of my science background, but because expertise in the area is not required to understand what is or is not a valid argument. The pause in warming is real, it is a problem acknowledged by the scientists who support AGW, and they have no explanation for it.

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

It really is interesting how MMGW proponents come up with expanations as to how the globe is warming despite the fact that it isn’t.

And it’s even more surprising how people deny it is warming when it actually is – long-term, not yearly or decadal, trend.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/ENSO_Temps_1024.gif

also: youtube.com/watch?v=e0vj-0imOLw

I know we live in an ultra-modern world with frost-free refrigerators, but for those who remember … warmth causes ice to melt.

 

[zz912]

Quote:
Originally Posted by estesbob View Post
I have yet to get an answer to this question and it is important as I’m going to be going to confession soon- is beng skeptical about AGW a mortal or a venial sin?

It’s what people do that counts. If you are mitigating AGW in whatever ways feasible for you, doing your best, then it probably doesn’t matter if you have some doubts about AGW, unless, of course, you are dissuading others from accepting AGW, from accepting and following the Pope’s recent encyclical, and from mitigating AGW. I’m thinking that would be much more serious than simply having doubts.

So AGW is part of the deposit of faith now? Denial or doubt about it is sinful?

We need to get this fully on the record, because it sounds like a religious doctrine you are proposing is part of the Deposit of Faith.

 

[lynnvinc]

Whether you insist that AGW is based on the models or the models are based on AGW, the relevant point surely must be that the models have made a major miscalculation: what they predicted has not happened.

The models have been remarkably close to what was predicted. Don’t know where you get your wrong info, but simply repeating what is wrong over and over again doesn’t make it right.

What those who deny AGW is happening predicted has been extremely off.

http://www.skepticalscience.com//images/ipcc_ar4_model_vs_obs.gif

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Hansen_vs_Lindzen_simple.png

May I remind all of you that AGW is a serious issue with dire threats to life on earth…including that of your own progeny. The Pope’s encyclical calls us to mitigate this very serious problems and NOT dither over slight over- & under-projections of climate models.

We’ve got to get beyond this and start turning out lights not in use and the 100s of other mainly easy & cost-effective things we have to do to mitigate AGW. Pope Francis even calls us to sacrifice a bit – maybe use a bit less AC – but at the very least don’t you think we should do those things with no net cost either financially or in terms of our living standards and productivity…then later think maybe of sacrificing a wee bit for the sake of the life of the world? Thing of Jesus on the cross. Think of a starving Madonna & Child in Africa due to AGW-enhanced droughts. Think of saving $$. Whatever works.

 

[estesbob]

So AGW is part of the deposit of faith now? Denial or doubt about it is sinful?

We need to get this fully on the record, because it sounds like a religious doctrine you are proposing is part of the Deposit of Faith.

There are all sorts of guidelines that need to be issued. For instance if I drive a Dodge ram 3500 am I committing a mortal sin? And can I lower it to a venial sin by trading it in for a Dodge Ram 2500? It seems, however, that one can buy carbon credits as a kind of get of hell not so free card.

 

[sps49]

The models have been remarkably close to what was predicted. Don’t know where you get your wrong info, but simply repeating what is wrong over and over again doesn’t make it right.

What those who deny AGW is happening predicted has been extremely off.

(snipped skepticalscience agitprop)

May I remind all of you that AGW is a serious issue with dire threats to life on earth…including that of your own progeny. The Pope’s encyclical calls us to mitigate this very serious problems and NOT dither over slight over- & under-projections of climate models.

We’ve got to get beyond this and start turning out lights not in use and the 100s of other mainly easy & cost-effective things we have to do to mitigate AGW. Pope Francis even calls us to sacrifice a bit – maybe use a bit less AC – but at the very least don’t you think we should do those things with no net cost either financially or in terms of our living standards and productivity…then later think maybe of sacrificing a wee bit for the sake of the life of the world? Thing of Jesus on the cross. Think of a starving Madonna & Child in Africa due to AGW-enhanced droughts. Think of saving $$. Whatever works.

So much potential hysteria, so little time.

It goes without saying that I challenge the veracity of the models you unabashedly front as if they were from God’s lips. As far as skepticalscience goes, it is another uncritical pro-AGW mill churning out invective and outrage as the main ingredient in their sausage. The only dire threat is one of terminal mendacity from your endless hyperbolic, panicked and hysterical posts.

 

[lynnvinc]

So much potential hysteria, so little time.

It goes without saying that I challenge the veracity of the models you unabashedly front as if they were from God’s lips. As far as skepticalscience goes, it is another uncritical pro-AGW mill churning out invective and outrage as the main ingredient in their sausage. The only dire threat is one of terminal mendacity from your endless hyperbolic, panicked and hysterical posts.

I take it that means you don’t accept that AGW is real and a threat to life on earth, and that you refuse to do the needful to mitigate it. No matter whose lives or souls are at risk?

 

[Theo520]

And it’s even more surprising how people deny it is warming when it actually is – long-term, not yearly or decadal, trend.

I know we live in an ultra-modern world with frost-free refrigerators, but for those who remember … warmth causes ice to melt.

Lynn dear, you’re playing with strawmen again. NOBODY denies we are in a long term warming trend.

Also, your Hansen chart was completely false. It also excluded including all three of his scenario forecasts. The real Hansen report card is below (he FAILED).

Based on CO2 output, we should have global temps above Scenario A, not below his best case Scenario C.

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

 

[Theo520]

And it’s even more surprising how people deny it is warming when it actually is – long-term, not yearly or decadal, trend.

And here is roughly the same chart from Skepticalscience, showing Hansen missed the boat. Skepticalscience has been to embarrassed to update the actual temp since 2010, since the gap only widens between forecast and actual.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Hansen_1988.gif

Note: CO2 growth indicates we should be following Hansen’s Scenario A.

 

[lynnvinc]

And here is roughly the same chart from Skepticalscience, showing Hansen missed the boat. Skepticalscience has been to embarrassed to update the actual temp since 2010, since the gap only widens between forecast and actual.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Hansen_1988.gif

Note: CO2 growth indicates we should be following Hansen’s Scenario A.

Please note that project was made in 1988. Climate science as advanced over the past 27 years! Let’s focus on what the scientists are telling us now, not yesteryear.

It is also interesting that Hansen made a projection in 1981, in which the deeper ocean uptakes some of the warming (which is what has been happening, lowering the surface temps), and that projection was an under-projection v. the actual observations.

Again, if you don’t believe the models and projections, at least believe the actual observations, which shows there has been warming over the past 40 years, with nearly all the highest temps since 2000, except a high temp in 1998, which was an unusually strong el nino year.

 

[sps49]

I take it that means you don’t accept that AGW is real and a threat to life on earth, and that you refuse to do the needful to mitigate it. No matter whose lives or souls are at risk?

At this point, for things science and technical, you are a perfect reverse barometer. Being such, it is a safe bet to not take your advice on things science and technical. For the record, if there is one thing at the top of my list that I do not take seriously, it is your hysterical and apoplectic pronouncements of causes, effects and mitigations. Spin that any way you wish, anthropology is your friend.

 

[zz912]

At this point, for things science and technical, you are a perfect reverse barometer. Being such, it is a safe bet to not take your advice on things science and technical. For the record, if there is one thing at the top of my list that I do not take seriously, it is your hysterical and apoplectic pronouncements of causes, effects and mitigations. Spin that any way you wish, anthropology is your friend.

These are some very wise words right here.

 

[Theo520]

At this point, for things science and technical, you are a perfect reverse barometer. Being such, it is a safe bet to not take your advice on things science and technical. For the record, if there is one thing at the top of my list that I do not take seriously, it is your hysterical and apoplectic pronouncements of causes, effects and mitigations. Spin that any way you wish, anthropology is your friend.

It’s maddening how she completely ignores any science or comments one presents that dispute her statements.

 

[tomarin]

At this point, for things science and technical, you are a perfect reverse barometer. Being such, it is a safe bet to not take your advice on things science and technical. For the record, if there is one thing at the top of my list that I do not take seriously, it is your hysterical and apoplectic pronouncements of causes, effects and mitigations. Spin that any way you wish, anthropology is your friend.

I didn’t get the anthropology reference.

 

[lynnvinc]

At this point, for things science and technical, you are a perfect reverse barometer. Being such, it is a safe bet to not take your advice on things science and technical. For the record, if there is one thing at the top of my list that I do not take seriously, it is your hysterical and apoplectic pronouncements of causes, effects and mitigations. Spin that any way you wish, anthropology is your friend.

Which means you think the same of the Pope and his encyclical, bec I’m right in step with that.

 

[sps49]

Which means you think the same of the Pope and his encyclical, bec I’m right in step with that.

Actually, it does not mean that. It means exactly what I said, which is not the same as placing you and the Pope in the same grouping; that would be a severe category error. As far as the overall encyclical goes, it was very prudent, with the exception of the claim of scientific consensus about climate change. There is no basis of fact that would support the inclusion of that claim.

 

[KSU]

Which means you think the same of the Pope and his encyclical, bec I’m right in step with that.

Lynn, what is it you think the Pope said; will the earth warm or will it cool? dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

 

[lynnvinc]

Actually, it does not mean that. It means exactly what I said, which is not the same as placing you and the Pope in the same grouping; that would be a severe category error. As far as the overall encyclical goes, it was very prudent, with the exception of the claim of scientific consensus about climate change. There is no basis of fact that would support the inclusion of that claim.

So you basically reject the heart of his encyclical – which is that AGW is indeed happening and even if we have our doubts (generated from greedy amoral sources that don’t care about life on earth), prudence require we mitigate it.

 

[sps49]

So you basically reject the heart of his encyclical – which is that AGW is indeed happening and even if we have our doubts (generated from greedy amoral sources that don’t care about life on earth), prudence require we mitigate it.

No, I only reject your distorted characterization of it.

I assumed the heart was the human person living under God in His creation, but I could be wrong. I have no doubt that the meme “AGW is happening” is the heart for you, the hammer for you nails. Assigning amorality to doubt is childish and reactionary, but I have come to expect this kind of bias from you.

Prudence? Please. It’s the precautionary principle masquerading as prudence, declining to fully examine the best available data in favor of a hedging philosophy. It is an intellectually dishonest approach which place the focus on the hypothesis, and eventually the hypothesis predetermines the results. Get a grip, lynvinnc.