What do you think of climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phaster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ender said:
40.png
phaster:
so you’re suggesting,… that we don’t teach students in school (now) AND who are going to have to figure out how to clean this mess,… that it isn’t important to be informed about the various basic mechanisms that effect the climate?!
Click to expand...
There is no reasonable way to assume this from what I said.
seems instead of leaving this world a better place than we found it,… by not teaching the various basic mechanisms that cause the climate to change,… we’re setting up students to be essentially deaf, dumb and blind to a “nonlinear dynamical system” that is more easily going to kill them off.
Click to expand...
Saying that the mechanisms that determine climate are extraordinarily complex and not well understood says nothing at all about whether they should be explored. How do you come up with this?
ignoring teaching the science isn’t WWJD IMHO
Click to expand...
Please, read my comments more carefully. Nothing you said is in any way relevant to what I said.
Click to expand...
human nature is our individual experiences and education we gather over the years,… this in turn forms a bias (whether we care to admit it or not),… basically what I posted was my own first quick impression of what caught my eye in your post (and signaled by using BOLD text)

you seemed to have left out the first part of my reply where I briefly addressed and linked to a web site that outlines various items w/ in “complex math models”

w/ that bit of info about “complex math models,…” and my specific comment about basic climate model variables,… then the rest of my post should make sense and is very relevant
 
Marshmallow2 said:
I know it is our fault and it is us who are destroying this lovely planet, but sometimes I can’t help but feel that it is God with a new version of Noah’s ark and ridding His Earth of our disgusting actions and thoughts.
Click to expand...
your comment brings up an interesting theological question,… on the issue of “climate change” is god about predestination or free will?

or are we being lead astray by “Merchants of Doubt”


if you look over a document of collective key evidence that outlines what actually happened to Roger Revelle (a pioneering scientist in the study of CO2)

www.TinyURL.com/RevelleDoubt

then watch an interview on the topic by key players,… it seems pretty clear that “Merchants of Doubt” are hiding the truth from people who did not have the good fortune to be taught the basic science by pioneering scientists like Roger Revelle

[KUSI News] Full unedited interview with S. Fred Singer parts 1 and 2



question now is, since you have been offered the truth,… what are you going to do w/ this newfound knowledge about “climate change” and the “Merchants of Doubt”
 
undead_rat said:
more food for thought:
The Dangerous Methane Mystery - CounterPunch.org
Click to expand...
yup, the methane mystery is indeed more food for though,… and yet another domino piece whose costs need to be accounted for and ultimate knock on effect damage potential be assessed (IOW methane burp = existential threat?)

A warming Arctic could cost the world trillions of dollars

A warming Arctic is shifting from white to dark as sea ice melts and land-covered snow retreats, and that means it can absorb even more of the sun’s heat. Plus, the Arctic’s vast permafrost area is thawing, releasing more heat-trapping carbon and methane. These climate-change-driven feedbacks in the Arctic are accelerating warming even faster and may add nearly $70 trillion to the overall costs of climate change—even if the world meets the Paris Agreement climate targets, a new study says.

However, if efforts can be made to keep climate change limited to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5C), the extra cost of Arctic warming drops to $25 trillion, new research published in Nature Communications reports. A trillion is a thousand billion. For comparison, the global GDP in 2016 was around $76 trillion.

www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/04/arctic-climate-change-feedback-loops-cost-trillions/
Click to expand...
sadly too few in the catholic community have done anything meaningful to help fix the problem(s)!
Religion must rise to the challenge of climate change too

…One little-explored effect of climate disaster – which pretty much defines the concept of an existential threat – is what it will do to religiosity. Given what we already know about quakes and other natural disasters, I would bet good money on it driving people into the arms of God.

In other words, what the major world religions teach about environmental issues will become increasingly important. And from what I heard in Rome, I am not confident that they will be helpful. The Catholic church looks quite green. But like its cutlery, appearances can be deceptive.

In 2015, Pope Francis issued an encyclical on the environment.

…The encyclical called for rapid action on environmental destruction and biodiversity loss, which enraptured some environmentalists. The Catholic church has 1.3 billion followers worldwide. They don’t hang on the Pope’s every word, but he is still influential.

However, there are reasons to regard the encyclical with scepticism. For one thing, it said nothing about birth control, which the church opposes, and hence the topic of my last column, population growth. The encyclical also seems to have been quickly forgotten. In Rome, I asked a young, devout theology student from the Philippines whether it had made an impact on the church’s teachings or the attitudes of its followers. Not a bit, he said.

www.newscientist.com/article/mg24232350-100-religion-must-rise-to-the-challenge-of-climate-change-too/
Click to expand...
 
The folks who champion climate change are the same ones who can’t tell the difference between a man and a woman. But we’re supposed to trust their “science” for providing electric and transport power for the entire planet. lol.
 
Dominoes are a good analogy, but there are over 1,000 dominoes and the scientists are only guessing on how much they each increase or decrease warming.
 
bobperk said:
The folks who champion climate change are the same ones who can’t tell the difference between a man and a woman. But we’re supposed to trust their “science” for providing electric and transport power for the entire planet. lol.
Click to expand...
just a wild guess,… science isn’t one of your “talents” (as in Matthew 25:14-30)

http://www.kkcj.org/teaching/article/using-your-gifts-the-parable-of-the-talents-matthew-2514-30

FWIW the way to tell the difference between a man and a woman using science is rather simple,… check out what is in the genes

female (i.e. a woman) is a pair of XX chromosomes

and

male (i.e. a man) is a pair of XY chromosomes
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
Dominoes are a good analogy, but there are “xxx” dominoes and the scientists are only guessing on how much they each increase or decrease warming.
Click to expand...
ever consider since there are two opposing camps in the climate debate with partisans passionately defending their dogmatic beliefs, the question becomes,… what’s next?

let’s assert for the moment that we’ll never know the full truth about odd events w/ the weather

given an impasse, to figure out what’s next we should consider the side effect(s) for various courses of action!.. in other words start by pondering,… Pascal’s Wager, the precautionary principle AND investing using a margin of safety,… which are all variations of a basic idea,… not to be wiped out!!
“PASCAL’S WAGER” is a theological argument presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–62) which posits that humans bet with their lives that god either exists or does not

“THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE” states when an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, then precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically,… it’s the common sense idea behind many adages, such as “Better safe than sorry!”

“A MARGIN OF SAFETY” is achieved when securities are purchased at prices sufficiently below underlying value to allow for human error, bad luck, or extreme volatility in a complex, unpredictable and rapidly changing world
Click to expand...
…we know if we all carry on using various fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) the trend will be ever increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere!!!

…so [IF DENIERS ARE WRONG] the potential downside is polar ice caps will melt, hence mean sea levels will rise AND threaten communities built on coastlines, etc.

…so [IF BELIVERS ARE WRONG] and nudge civilization to limit GHG (Greenhouse Gas) production, the potential downside is existing big business interests dependent upon fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) will either have to adapt or cease to exist

either way,… seems no way to avoid “biblical, fire and brimstone” havoc?!
 
phaster said:
ever consider since there are two opposing camps in the climate debate with partisans passionately defending their dogmatic beliefs, the question becomes,… what’s next?

let’s assert for the moment that we’ll never know the full truth about odd events w/ the weather

given an impasse, to figure out what’s next we should consider the side effect(s) for various courses of action!.. in other words start by pondering,… Pascal’s Wager, the precautionary principle AND investing using a margin of safety,… which are all variations of a basic idea,… not to be wiped out!!
Click to expand...
The science is settled on increased radiated warming from doubling CO2. We’ve always known it will increase temperatures by ~1.1C

However, since the late 70’s, they have predicted the additional dominoes (feedbacks) would add 0.5-3.5C in additional warming. That is a huge range, a target equal to the side of a barn. The latest IPCC reports continue to use the same swag on feedback impacts

We won’t solve this impasse until the researchers can turn this into a reliable estimate, backed by science. That is were our research focus should be, then we will reach a true consensus and move forward with an appropriate response.

The policy response to 1.5% in warming is vastly different than4.5C warming
 
Unfortunately, I think there are undeniably two things going on:
  1. Our lifestyle in the US, whether Christian or not, is extremely wasteful. Our last 100 years may possibly be the most profligate use of natural resources in history. We have not only consumed natural resources on a breathtaking scale but have also generated shocking amounts of waste, much of it waste that is durable and toxic to living things.
  2. We are witnessing more frequent and more powerful storms, droughts and temperature extremes. If this goes on, we will predictably have more famines, more wars, more refugees and more suffering among the poor, especially the poorest of the poor.
We could argue all day how much #1 causes #2 and whether the staggering amount of CO2 exhaust we generate is a form of waste that is causing the environmental damage that a great many suspect it is without having come up for an excuse for #1.

I’m not exempting myself. I’m just saying I’m becoming increasingly uncomfortable with living a typical American lifestyle. I’m also very leery of whether humankind is at all ready to accommodate those who are displaced by natural disaster after natural disaster. Considering Our Lord’s clear command to those who hope for the Beatific Vision to welcome the hungry, the naked, the stranger and so on, this is of obvious concern to Christendom.
 
I think climate changes from spring to summer to autumn to winter. Anything else is political nonsense.
 
PetraG said:
We are witnessing more frequent and more powerful storms, droughts and temperature extremes.
Click to expand...
This is one of the reasons there is push-back against those who insist the sky is falling. This statement is simply false, and is contradicted by the available data. That this claim is repeated endlessly doesn’t change the fact that it is not supported by anything more than empty assertions.

Here is the data for hurricanes:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
And here is NOAA’s data on tornadoes:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
@PetraG
I don’t disagree with #1,

but #2 is complete poppycock. It may be forecast for the future, but we aren’t’ seeing it yet.
 
Every thought seems to be about global warming. It is true that this warming climate is a fact of life whether or not it is being accelerated by man’s addition of CO2 into the atmosphere. In my opinion, the human race can survive the various effects of this warm up.

What I see as being ignored is the coming ice-age which will start quite suddenly when the arctic sea ice melts completely. This open water will add a great amount of moisture to the arctic air, and this H2O will precipitate out as snow over the northern hemisphere which could easily see 100 feet of snow each winter. Imagine New York City receiving 100 feet of snow in a single winter. All of that snow cannot melt off over the summer in the northern-most latitudes, and it will compress down to at least one foot of solid ice. Over the geologically very short time period of 1000 years, that foot of ice per year will produce a one thousand foot deep glacier, and that, I believe is a much greater threat than the present warming cycle.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
I don’t disagree with #1,

but #2 is complete poppycock. It may be forecast for the future, but we aren’t’ seeing it yet.
Click to expand...
Let me repeat what I wrote in order to clarify:
*We are witnessing more frequent and more powerful storms, droughts and temperature extremes. *
If this goes on, we will predictably have more famines, more wars, more refugees and more suffering among the poor, especially the poorest of the poor…
I also very leery about whether humankind is at all ready to accommodate those who are displaced by natural disaster after natural disaster.

I am not saying that the natural disasters will continue in the frequency we’re seeing them, only that the last 20-30 years have undeniably had more of the worst natural disasters than another period of an equal length we could name. It would be prudent to ask how we’re going to handle it if this keeps up or even gets worse.

My optimistic side says that World War II was not only an example of a horrific side of human behavior but also an example of some of the most remarkable turn-arounds in human habits in history. It is really amazing how much was accomplished and what was sacrificed to accomplish it. I don’t know that could have been predicted in the 1910s by those who, using that example, might have clearly seen the politically or socially concerning things going on at that time already.

Having said all of that, it wouldn’t hurt us to simply desire to be more frugal and mindful of the consequences of our consumption, whether or not it will cause a disaster on a large or small scale if we don’t change. Just having wasteful habits is something we ought to be wary about, for spiritual reasons if for none other. Besides, the maxim “live simply, so others may simply live” does have some truth to it. Our consumption habits do have worldwide consequences.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
Let me repeat what I wrote in order to clarify:
*We are witnessing more frequent and more powerful storms, droughts and temperature extremes. *
Click to expand...
Nope, POPPYCOCK
There is zero evidence this is happening
In fact the studies show the opposite, supported by IPCC



 
I didn’t say global warming or excessive consumption causes extreme weather.
I said extreme weather events are becoming more frequent, because they are.
There are more and longer heat waves. There are more and heavier heavy rainfall events.
By most measures, there is greater hurricane activity in the Atlantic.
The US has seen more frequent and more intense tornados. And so on.

I said that (a) we consume an extraordinary and unsustainable amount, by historical standands and
(b) we’re getting more frequent very bad weather events that could lead to an unusual number of needy people and
(c ) even if (b) is in no way caused by (a) that wouldn’t be an excuse for (a), nor would it relieve Christians of concern for those affected by (b).

In other words, it is possible to look at the connection as a moot point, even if you don’t think there is one. What we do know still argues in favor of living more frugally and being ready to help more people in great distress.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top