What do you think of climate change?

[pnewton]

Or pride could be blinding many within the scientific community and questioning is met with derision as exemplified by snide remarks evident in this own thread.

Questioning is, and must be, part of the scientific process. Pride has led many scientist astray. However, like a large body where many part work, and some don’t, progress is made only when seeing the whole. That is why we do not use leeches by candlelight to heal people. Of course there will be errors in climate science, and pride will lead to those errors.

On the other hand, when industry promotes these rabbit trails as some evidence that climate science is worthless, then those that want to believe, will believe. When leaders cry “fake news” to tickle the ears of their base, then those who want to be tickled, will believe that all climate change is fake. America will then follow the steps of other once great empires into oblivion, weaving its destruction, while taking a chunk of the world with us.

I understand it is hard to know who to believe in a world so chock full of opinions, and so devoid of wisdom. The Church, and its shepherd, has responded difficulty by giving us Laudato Si, to which many Catholics have responded, No.

 

[steve-b]

Mr Steve B.

Let me explain something to you. Saying “not me but science” is a cool argument to have but in the real world with smart people around the table you need a little bit more.

Then Let me explain something to you. When the subject is a science issue, Those around the table SHOULD want Science sources to make points.

MichaelP3:

My job would be so easy if I can just quote a source and think its the end of it. It Isn’t my dear Mr Steve B. And Basic Chemistry says that.

You need a new job.

MichaelP3:

I actually wondered today while driving to work? Do people like you believe in the water cycle? (I learned that in school and it is utterly false! Maybe take what else you learned and also question that! At least from an actual academic view please!) all water (either the ocean or rivers have a cycle)? It may blow your mind that one if the chemical units I am involved in actually creates water (like water on this earth is becoming more and this is but one of this chemical units on this earth) at quite a substantial rate. (How is that possible? PM me and I will explain) point is, humans are quite capable of doing things to change the dynamics of our mother earth.

So far you have said nothing about what was posted. If you want to take apart the sources I quoted, go right ahead. Oh and btw, when you personally, have a published work in a science publication, be sure and post it here on these forums, unless you have already done so, then please direct us to it…

MichaelP3:

More CO2 is bad when you take what I just said into account. Naturally it will happen but currently it is happening at a faster rate and this is the crux. I can explain differentials to you but that would be missing the point.

Kind Regards

So why bring it up?

 

[Ender]

That is all good and well as long as it is based on the fundamentals.

An opinion that is impervious to facts can hardly be one based on the fundamentals.

yet we have wannabe chemical engineers and chemists who read the magazine and then try to comment.

You keep going on about how anyone with a good basis in chemistry would just naturally agree with AGW, but if that’s all it took then there would hardly be any dissent among scientists on this issue, yet the dissent is there and it is significant. The climate is an incredibly complex system, and basic chemistry does not begin to explain it.

 

[MichaelP3]

On the other hand, when industry promotes these rabbit trails as some evidence that climate science is worthless, then those that want to believe, will believe. When leaders cry “fake news” to tickle the ears of their base, then those who want to be tickled, will believe that all climate change is fake. America will then follow the steps of other once great empires into oblivion, weaving its destruction, while taking a chunk of the world with us.

History is a great tool and if it doesn’t make a person uncomfortable then they need to read more.

 

[MichaelP3]

But you see that is part of my point. Stating this from this source or from that source works for the readers but not for the people in the science community. There are millions of “verified” sources that contradict each other in that world. So stating something as “fact” in the science community WILL RAISE EYEBROWS UNLESS IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FUNDAMENTAL. That is just how it works. I am literally experiencing that on a daily basis.

And dissent is constantly occurring everywhere in the science community. Heck; some still believe in Geocentricism. And I am sure Ill find a source in the literature that “proves” that claim.

 

[MichaelP3]

I think I know what you mean. Last night was hectic for me and I didn’t read your post thoroughly.

Think about it this way. If you are a heart surgeon and a person who read the “heart magazine” comes and tells you how to work with hearts. What will your answer be? Will it seem arrogant? Maybe? But you are the heart surgeon who works and checks hearts literally everyday. So if you seem arrogant to the person reading the heart magazine that is actually okay but again that is my opinion.

 

[Ender]

Think about it this way. If you are a heart surgeon and a person who read the “heart magazine” comes and tells you how to work with hearts. What will your answer be? Will it seem arrogant? Maybe? But you are the heart surgeon who works and checks hearts literally everyday. So if you seem arrogant to the person reading the heart magazine that is actually okay but again that is my opinion.

This doesn’t begin to capture what’s actually going on, or address the reasonableness of the objections of even non-scientists. When Mann’s hockey stick was the poster boy of the IPCC report you would expect history majors to look askance at it inasmuch as it completely eliminated both the MWP and the LIA. How much science is required to note that that graph was utterly and completely different than the one the IPCC published in its first 5 year report?

Your heart surgeon analogy would be more accurate if you had him sending patients to Mexico to try curing their ailments with an extract from peach pits. Lay concerns in such a scenario would be much more reasonable.

 

[MichaelP3]

Do you believe in Climate change or not? That will give me a whole lot to work on.

Aside! My heart surgeon analogy is quite good ( mexico actually do have smart people!. Read it again and then post!

 

[MichaelP3]

Actually Ender? Are you a professional in the field or a “reading the heart magazine” person. That also makes a difference for me how to respond.

And I am not saying not understanding “these sources” makes you stupid , not at all, but I am rather concerned about how these sources are understood and very importantly the context and also very important to be even remotely credible THE FUNDAMENTALS.

 

[phaster]

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.

FWIW revelle had a pretty good intuition about the science of CO2 and so called “ocean acidification” way back in the 1950s

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

…The oceans take up CO2 from the atmosphere and are responsible for absorbing around a third of the CO2 emitted by fossil fuel burning, deforestation, and cement production since the industrial revolution (Sabine et al. 2004). While this is beneficial in terms of limiting the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and hence greenhouse warming due to this CO2, there are direct consequences for ocean chemistry. Ocean acidification describes the lowering of seawater pH and carbonate saturation that result from increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

…Decreasing ocean pH has the potential to affect life in the ocean because all organisms must expend metabolic energy in maintaining a particular pH inside of their cells to ensure biochemical processes operate efficiently (Raven et al. 2005). Decreasing ocean pH also has rather more unexpected consequences — frequencies of sound, important for sonar and marine mammal (whale) communication, propagate more efficiently in waters with lower pH.

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

…It is important to recognise that there may be winners as well as losers as a consequence of ocean acidification, either because some species may actually ‘prefer’ lower pH, or because reductions in numbers of one species will leave more resources available for another.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/ocean-acidification-25822734

and because of revelle had a pretty good intuition of what was really going on,… he was the target of a PsyOp started long ago by “Merchants of Doubt”

What do you think of climate change? Social Justice

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” [Merchants of Doubt Official Trailer 1 (2014) - Documentary HD] 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 pla…

What do you think of climate change? Social Justice

huh,… seems some CAF posters have been duped by various “Merchants of Doubt” into parroting their message,… for example in some older CAF discussions, we see,… just sayin,… there was a PsyOp started long ago to try and win hearts and minds,… AND this can be proven quite simply by skimming over a document of collective key evidence www.TinyURL.com/RevelleDoubt (this “redirect” link points to a PDF on GoogleDocs which outlines what actually happened behind the scenes to Roger Revelle, who wa…

 

[phaster]

phaster:

TinyURL[dot]com/HowBigIsTheEarth

thank you, I will have a look. I scanned over your post and a couple things stood out to me. one, is doing what we can, where we are, and esp when it involves teaching children how to grow food, to recycle compost…so important. our local schools do this plus I have raised garden beds here where children also are involved.
a bigger item was giving up my car, using bus transportation for longer trips and walking or riding my bike. because I retired I was able to do this. I just thing each person can assess their personal situation and see what they can do to help take care of our common home.

in my last response, should have mentioned instead of raised beds to grow vegetables,… I designed and built sub irrigation planters for my own use

TinyURL[dot]com/Veg-Table

www.TinyURL.com/Veg-Table

I find SIPs (sub irrigation planters) to be more efficient using water, and I can set them up anywhere,… like in my drive way right beside my garage

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

for instance just went out to pick some fresh strawberry for breakfast

when I need a chili, tomatoes, basil, mint, etc. to prepare a meal,… I have fresh organic stuff that is a heck of a lot shorter walk than to a store or the local farmers market

 

[phaster]

I was arguing with a friend today says he has always voted Republican, but says now his first priority is Climate change, not social issues. So not the issues that matter to the person ie. abortion., but rather the world is more important, and that to me says that the earth becomes his god. I think that’s ridiculous.

ever consider perhaps you’re friend is thinking,… earth isn’t a god,… it’s our only home



http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap181224.html

so considering “climate change” has serious knock on effects, like drought which leads to migration (think what happened during the 1930s dust bowl),…

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg(image larger than 4096KB)

Florence Owens Thompson - Wikipedia

truth is,… actually “climate change” is a big social issue

 

[pnewton]

Laudato Si explains why climate change is a pro-life issue. There is no right way to take innocent human life, either through mass starvation, unjust war, or direct abortion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

When Mann’s hockey stick was the poster boy of the IPCC report you would expect history majors to look askance at it inasmuch as it completely eliminated both the MWP and the LIA.

When one looks at the assertion that “Mann completely eliminated the MWP and the LIA” quantitatively, the argument is not very strong. According to temperature reconstructions, the MWP peaked around the year 1100 at a temperature anomaly of -0.2 C, and the LIA “valley” was around the year 1600 at -0.5 C. Various reconstructions provide slightly different answers, but this is the average of those reconstructions.

Looking now at the Mann graph, it shows the same -0.2 C in the year 1100, and for the year 1600 it shows about -0.3 C. So it looks like your “smoking gun” is nothing but a 0.2 degree difference (between -0.3 and -0.5), which is about equal to the error bands specified by Mann.

This is certainly not enough of a problem to discount the major finding of the Mann graph, which is a +0.4 C anomaly by the year 2000, which was achieved, and it is still climbing.

This is shown in better graphical detail here:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/DecadalTemp

 

[Theo520]

Maybe I am approaching this wrong. Do you believe at ALL that mankind can “alter Mother Nature”?

Actually your question says much about your understanding of other people.

Nobody disputes the heat island effect, or that we can dam rivers, pollute and even clean up the environment, etc, etc. Everyone knows we can naturally breed or even use gene splicing to adjust our floral and fauna.

 

[Ender]

Do you believe in Climate change or not? That will give me a whole lot to work on.

I believe the climate is changing, and I suspect most of the changes are natural and that man’s impact is not nearly as significant as has been presented.

Are you a professional in the field or a “reading the heart magazine” person. That also makes a difference for me how to respond.

What I am should make no difference whatever. Either my arguments are valid or they are invalid, and they should be evaluated on their reasonableness, not on my personal expertise.

 

[Ender]

Laudato Si explains why climate change is a pro-life issue. There is no right way to take innocent human life, either through mass starvation, unjust war, or direct abortion.

Climate change is a scientific question; there is no moral aspect to it. If I think AGW is real then I should act accordingly, and if I think it is in error, again I should act accordingly. So long as I do what I think is right, and my position is based on a reasonable understanding of the subject, then there is no sin regardless of which position I take. That being so, there can be no moral concern.

When one looks at the assertion that “Mann completely eliminated the MWP and the LIA” quantitatively , the argument is not very strong. According to temperature reconstructions, the MWP peaked around the year 1100 at a temperature anomaly of -0.2 C, and the LIA “valley” was around the year 1600 at -0.5 C. Various reconstructions provide slightly different answers, but this is the average of those reconstructions.

That’s not the way the IPCC presented it. The First Assessment Report is apparently not on line, but here is essentially the temperature reconstruction they presented, which was standard in textbooks prior to 2000, and it doesn’t match your description at all.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Holme’s Principles of Physical Geology, 4th ed, 1993)

And here is the Hockey Stick…which doesn’t match anything
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

There is simply no relation between what the IPCC first presented and Mann’s graph, and the difference would be evident to high school students, although it has apparently escaped the notice of AGW apologists.

 

[pnewton]

Climate change is a scientific question; there is no moral aspect to it.

Again, Laudato Si would seem to contradict that opinion.

I will stick with the Church on this on.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

When one looks at the assertion that “Mann completely eliminated the MWP and the LIA” quantitatively , the argument is not very strong. According to temperature reconstructions, the MWP peaked around the year 1100 at a temperature anomaly of -0.2 C, and the LIA “valley” was around the year 1600 at -0.5 C. Various reconstructions provide slightly different answers, but this is the average of those reconstructions.

That’s not the way the IPCC presented it. The First Assessment Report is apparently not on line, but here is essentially the temperature reconstruction they presented, which was standard in textbooks prior to 2000, and it doesn’t match your description at all.

I cannot vouch for every graph that anyone every produced supporting climate change. You specifically mentioned the Mann hockey stick graph, and so I reported on the Mann hockey stick graph. So now you pick a different target to criticize? Please, one target at a time.

Ender:

And here is the Hockey Stick…which doesn’t match anything

It matches the two temperatures I cited in my defense of Mann: -0.2 for the MWP and -0.5 for the LIA. Those were the two points that you were disputing, as I recall.

 

[MichaelP3]

Actually your question says much about your understanding of other people.

Care to propose " my understanding".

I am REALLY not that difficult here. I just want one person who actually understand. Currently they are not here! (And yes; in my previous postd I tried to get them here!)