What do you think of climate change?

[RCIAGraduate]

What’s your take on the issue regarding the coral reef systems?

Plus, regardless of one’s viewpoints on the topic, do you think solutions like REDD or Reducing Emissions from Deforestration and Degradation are cool and interesting ideas to look into, I mean either way, shouldn’t we work towards preserving ecological treasures like the Amazon Rainforest and the Great Barrier Reef?

Finally, not relevant but could be interlinked, what are your thoughts on terraforming and geoengineering, I’m not informed about it myself but the idea of being able to make the world, humanity’s easel seems not only futuristic but interesting.

 

[StephenBales]

I’m well aware of the difference, but played as if I was not. Hence the joke.
I’m well aware that chickens do not normally cross roads, but play as if this is novel to me. Hence the joke.

I’m done with this now. Have a good one!

 

[Ender]

I do have a hard time with people who believe there is an international conspiracy to fake the data to show the temperature of the earth is rising.

Perhaps, but labeling something a conspiracy suggests an issue should be dismissed as silly, but valid concerns have been raised about the way organizations (e.g. NASA) keep changing historical data. It is quite reasonable to question why even 21st century measurements are being altered and why all the alterations always go the same way: to show increased warming.

In other words, the premise that the world is getting warmer due to factors beyond our control and the premise that it is getting warmer due to factors that are within our control aren’t mutually exclusive by any means. There is no reason there has to be just one cause, either, or that some things we do warm the earth up while others work against the warming trend.

This is very true, but it also isn’t the point being contested. The relevant question is whether world economies should be devastated in order to make changes that, even if the alarmist position is correct, will have little effect on the climate. Some changes are reasonable, some are not, and replacing hydrocarbon energy with “renewable” sources is not.

 

[PetraG]

Perhaps, but labeling something a conspiracy suggests an issue should be dismissed as silly, but valid concerns have been raised about the way organizations (e.g. NASA) keep changing historical data. It is quite reasonable to question why even 21st century measurements are being altered and why all the alterations always go the same way: to show increased warming.

No, in spite of what you may honestly take me to mean (because others mean it that way) by cautioning against labeling something a conspiracy I meant avoiding calumny. That doesn’t mean that well-intentioned people cannot be making spectacular and costly mistakes in good faith. I mean only that there is a high standard of proof when the contention is that the problems aren’t mistakes but frauds perpetuated in bad faith. Making a concerted effort in bad faith would undermine the practice of science in a way that unintended bias would not. Unintended bias, we will always have with us, because we are always looking for patterns using a set of incomplete data with some margin of error in it, including non-random error.

This is very true, but it also isn’t the point being contested. The relevant question is whether world economies should be devastated in order to make changes that, even if the alarmist position is correct, will have little effect on the climate. Some changes are reasonable, some are not, and replacing hydrocarbon energy with “renewable” sources is not.

Why should we assume world economies will be devastated if fossil fuel consumption is curtailed? Would you say that most extreme poverty in the world is due to restricted access to fossil fuels? I can understand that it is prudent to be circumspect about boundaries placed on industry, but we have had many examples that show that being too slow to place boundaries can also have a devastating effect, due to the immense scale of contemporary human industry. Whatever we do, we do big, and the consequences are large. It isn’t unreasonable, based on our past, to exercise caution about what we do and don’t allow and how unbridled we allow our human industries to be.

 

[Ender]

What’s your take on the issue regarding the coral reef systems?

AGW is like a giant game of Wack-a-Mole. You can no sooner put down one disaster claim before another one pops up, and while you’re off chasing that one, the original one springs back to life. The danger to coral reefs is just another such disaster scenario that stays around and recurs no matter what is discovered.

The gulf between the two sides is evident in the question “shouldn’t we work towards preserving ecological treasures…”. Of course we should; why would you think to ask that? That the goal is shared, however, doesn’t at all suggest that there will be agreement on the means used to achieve it. What I do not accept is the charge (or implication) that because someone opposes specific means he necessarily opposes the ends to which they are directed.

 

[Ender]

Why should we assume world economies will be devastated if fossil fuel consumption is curtailed?

We have seen countries try to go green, Germany being the best example, and what it has cost them. IIRC Germany went about 1/3 renewable, their electricity costs are three time higher than ours, and they’ve done little to reduce their carbon output in the electricity sector since 1995. This despite spending hundreds of billions of euros. The Green New Deal the Democrats are pushing is estimated to cost trillions.

Would you say that most extreme poverty in the world is due to restricted access to fossil fuels?

I would say that most extreme poverty is due to restricted access to cheap electricity, and green restrictions will simply delay that commodity to those who most need it.

 

[Ender]

Why should we assume world economies will be devastated if fossil fuel consumption is curtailed?

I want to come back to this question again and start by noting that phrasing it as “curtailing” fossil fuel consumption really distorts the reality of what is being suggested, which is not merely curtailing it but eliminating it. That’s what the 100% renewable effort is really all about. Here is one take on what that would mean for the UK.

The late Professor David Mackay, a Cambridge engineer and chief scientist at the UK government’s Department of Energy and Climate Change once looked at what decarbonising the economy by going 100 per cent renewable might look like for the British landscape.

Building 61,000 wind turbines.

Covering 5 per cent of the UK landmass — the equivalent of Cambridgeshire, Gloucestershire, Lancashire, and Staffordshire combined — with solar arrays. (That would be 100 x more solar PV than has been installed in the whole world to date.)

Damming most of the rivers in the West Highlands of Scotland to generate hydropower.

Building huge barrages across rivers such as the Severn, destroying intertidal mud flats and devastating bird and fish species.

Using the entirety of Britain’s agricultural land to grow biofuels.

So, yes, I believe that going the renewable route would devastate the economies that tried it.

the idea that the UK could power itself by 100 per cent renewable energy was an “appalling delusion”.

 

[Larry1700]

1.I don’t have the expertise to refute accepted science in the field of climatology. I don’t understand how people can believe that they know more about climate change from reading a few internet articles vs. the people who’ve spent decades studying the topic.

True, but the thousands of people (including celebrities and certain congress-people) who are such strong activists about this issue don’t have the expertise to critically assess the data from either the pro- or anti-climate change scientists either. They (and me) just willingly accept the data which supports our side.

I kind of look at it from a “common sense” point of view (or so I think). On a trip to Alaska, for instance, there was a park leaflet showing how the glacier had advanced and retreated many times. The earth has gone through many changes of climate, and we’re still here. Also, I’m old enough to have lived through the various dire warnings about global cooling, etc., which didn’t pan out. So, the current dire warnings don’t scare me.

Further, I am aware of the many times throughout history when governments (or political activists who want to overthrow existing governments) have used a catastrophe (real or fictional) to further their cause. I believe this is one of those issues.

 

[Ender]

What’s your take on the issue regarding the coral reef systems?

Regarding concerns about coral reefs, there is reason to disbelieve the dire predictions.

Coral Reefs Can Take The Heat, Unlike Experts Crying Wolf – Watts Up With That?

How Gaia and coral reefs regulate ocean pH | Climate Etc.

This comment from the first paper needs to be recognized as the real problem:

To misquote Oscar Wilde, to exaggerate once is a misfortune, to do it twice looks careless, but to do it repeatedly looks like unforgivable systemic unreliability by some of our major science organisations.

 

[Anrakyr]

My brother attended the yearly Catholic science conference this year at University of Notre Dame. The topic was about human evolution and body modifications. Example giving humans wings or cybernetics.

My bro brought up climate change and a number of scientist (all Catholic mind) became sad and said this.

“People who are not scientifically minded will cling to articals and news heads that seem to debunk our warnings without understanding how irrelevant the points they bring up are. Many of us have Catholic family members who routinely are convinced away from our advice.
Climate change is very real and it needs to be addressed soon.”

 

[PetraG]

I want to come back to this question again and start by noting that phrasing it as “curtailing” fossil fuel consumption really distorts the reality of what is being suggested, which is not merely curtailing it but eliminating it.

That is not realistically going to happen any time in the near future. Realistically it is going to happen eventually; at least, one hopes the human race will outlast the store of fossil fuels that can be economically mined.

 

[phaster]

a number of scientist (all Catholic mind) became sad and said this.

“People who are not scientifically minded will cling to articals and news heads that seem to debunk our warnings without understanding how irrelevant the points they bring up are. Many of us have Catholic family members who routinely are convinced away from our advice.
Climate change is very real and it needs to be addressed soon.”

They (and me) just willingly accept the data which supports our side.

Further, I am aware of the many times throughout history when governments (or political activists who want to overthrow existing governments) have used a catastrophe (real or fictional) to further their cause. I believe this is one of those issues.

ignorance is bliss?

Asking all priests: Why not talk about the hard issues at Mass? Evangelization

yup,… I do,… question is do you? and from what I can tell reading this and various other threads,… seems you do not! and,… since you specifically mentioned 2 Peter 3 (the Destruction of the earth) [2 Peter 3 and the Destruction of the earth] FWIW couple of things first came to my mind,… first WRT “faith” and science http://www.mvchurchofchrist.org/blog/2018/07/16/ignorance-isnt-bliss AND second,… WRT why ignore “faith and science,…” then the question then becomes one of mo…

perhaps so given the magnitude of the problem(s)?!

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

So far, ocean pH has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1 since the industrial revolution, and is expected by fall another 0.3 to 0.4 pH units by the end of the century. A drop in pH of 0.1 might not seem like a lot, but the pH scale, like the Richter scale for measuring earthquakes, is logarithmic. For example, pH 4 is ten times more acidic than pH 5 and 100 times (10 times 10) more acidic than pH 6. If we continue to add carbon dioxide at current rates, seawater pH may drop another 120 percent by the end of this century, to 7.8 or 7.7, creating an ocean more acidic than any seen for the past 20 million years or more.

Many chemical reactions, including those that are essential for life, are sensitive to small changes in pH. In humans, for example, normal blood pH ranges between 7.35 and 7.45. A drop in blood pH of 0.2-0.3 can cause seizures, comas, and even death. Similarly, a small change in the pH of seawater can have harmful effects on marine life, impacting chemical communication, reproduction, and growth.

Ocean Acidification | Smithsonian Ocean

FWIW

…Blood pH balance

Acidosis is when your blood pH drops below 7.35 and becomes too acidic.

Alkalosis is when your blood pH is higher than 7.45 and becomes too alkaline.

…The takeaway

A blood pH level that isn’t normal may be a sign you have slight imbalance or a health condition.

Normal pH of Blood in Humans: What Actions Affect It?

The takeaway (WRT CO2 and climate change)

the fact that global seawater pH levels are dropping is a sign that stuff happening isn’t normal,… or said another way,… mankind has a dramatic influence on the environment

 

[phaster]

phaster:

we know the chemical reaction of burning gas in an engine creates CO2,… using math we can calculate the amount of CO2 produced globally,… the smoking gun that points toward mankind having the ability to dramatically effect this planet is…

I think we’re just starting to comprehend what we’re capable of doing. I don’t think the 20th century argues in favor of just automatically assuming the best.

sadly,… seems 99.99% are ignoring or even have a basic understanding of the various signs,… that science has presented WRT climate change

sadly,… in the realm of catholic faith,…seems too many are ignoring or even have a basic understanding of the various signs,

July marks the fourth anniversary of the launch of a campaign by Pope Francis to rally the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics in the fight against climate change.

The pope’s 2015 encyclical on the environment was titled, “Laudato Si: On Care for our Common Home.”

Father Emmet Farrell, the priest charged with implementing the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego’s implementation of “Laudato Si,” joins us on Midday Edition to discuss the progress the diocese has made in the first four years of the campaign.

How The San Diego Catholic Diocese Is Raising Awareness About Climate Change | KPBS

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

As someone who is disinterested in the discussion of climate change, I have to say that @Ender is much more persuasive than @phaster

Still don’t care very much either way, but thought this group might be interested in what ‘side’ is more convincing.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Honestly? I’m not a scientist. It’s not I doubt it, I’m just kind of put off by the alarmism of people touting it as fact.

 

[PetraG]

Honestly? I’m not a scientist. It’s not I doubt it, I’m just kind of put off by the alarmism of people touting it as fact.

The issue is that we’re not talking about a ship that can be turned on a dime. There is no way to immediately eliminate our level of fossil fuel usage. That really would cause very serious and widespread suffering. The question is whether we can even reduce the rate at which the CO2 levels are rising. Even those of us who don’t accept that CO2 has a greenhouse effect cannot deny that it has an effect on ocean pH, just as use of coal-powered power generation can result in acid rain (because of the SO2 and NOx compounds produced).

People talk about science “alarmists,” but some of us are old enough to remember that was also the charge brought when the dangers of acid rain, leaded fuel and smoking were raised. The “oh, it is too much of a burden to ask us to change this” or “you are just trying to scare people” is usually the battle cry. That kind of argument from interests making buckets of money from the status quo should also raise doubts in listeners. There isn’t just one side with an “agenda” here or a bias to defend.

Remember, too, that much of the response to the acid rain problem was too little and too late. Remember that there were “data massage” accusations against acid rain scientists that were shown to be the lies. Some of those charges are still be repeated as if they were the truth! (Those who were provoking others to rash judgment did not produce peer-reviewed evidence for their allegations, but the accused produced plenty of evidence that the charges were false.) As for tobacco, we have evidence about how Philip Morris paid so-called “experts” to muddy the data about the dangers of smoking. The charge that cleaning up coal plants would be far too expensive to be workable was also wrong.

In other words, history teaches us that it is those who “fight” science are tempted to “massage” the facts to make their case, too, even when the evidence against them has become overwhelming and even to the point of obvious bad faith.

 

[skelly]

Only there are people with credible science and data that are ignored in this debate.

 

[PetraG]

Only there are people with credible science and data that are ignored in this debate.

I am saying that people who lack the science background to accept global warming (or who claim to) do not have a leg to stand on when it comes to ocean pH. They can only deny so much with a straight face. If you passed general chemistry, you accept acidification and it implications. Those themselves ARE bad enough to give a just reason to reduce CO2 levels.

I am not suggesting that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas or isn’t causing global warming. I’m only saying that it is a political impossibility to eliminate the use of fossil fuels entirely. That is not going to happen. Reduction of CO2 production and some kind of CO2 fixing is probably the best we can do, if we’re going to be realistic.

As for the history of whether the planet is warming up or if atmospheric CO2 levels were rising, it is a very old one, and it did NOT start in 1980 when we got satellites. That is a total fabrication.
https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm

People who are worried about the poor should not be blindly defending the use of fossil fuels. Instead, we need to figure out what we’re going to do if the world is suddenly awash with refugees or suffering from famines and droughts due to climate change. It could easily happen and nobody wants to be left saying “we told you so.” In order to cause the least amount of suffering, the changes towards sustainable energy need to start as soon as possible so that we can make them as gradually as possible. It may already be too late for that, but political reality, like the global atmosphere, cannot be turned on a dime, either.

 

[Ender]

That is not realistically going to happen any time in the near future. Realistically it is going to happen eventually; at least, one hopes the human race will outlast the store of fossil fuels that can be economically mined.

“Realistically it is going to happen?” There is nothing realistic about a scenario that requires half of Britain to be covered in windmills and all of their agriculture devoted to growing fuel. This would be insane even if it was affordable. How can rational people be so sanguine about something so outrageous? It’s like pinning your hopes on finding unicorns.

 

[PetraG]

I did not mean we would live to see the internal combustion engine displaced as a major energy source. By “eventually” I meant that the human race does not have a literally limitless supply of fossil fuels on planet Earth. In 50 or 100 years, we won’t be able to sustain the kind of dependence we have now.

That is not that long, particularly not if we’re profligate about using what we have. Why just assume that every reason that our grandchildren could want to have an oil reserve is unimportant? Petroleum has so many uses other than just burning it up. It is a very valuabe starting material, and yet there are a lot of “rational” people who are pretty sanguine about burning it as if it could never run out.