What do you think of climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phaster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is a great post.
My point on climate change is along the same lines.
Even if climate change is wrong, which incontrovertible evidence says we ARE increasing global temperatures, why would anyone be against it anyway?
Don’t you want LESS pollution?
Is this really about money and your personal lifestyle?
As Christians, I don’t get it. We are supposed to care for God’s creation, not destroy it. And if nearly all the scientists (literally all respected scientists) say we are destroying God’s creation, why would you not take it seriously?
So much of the right-wing seems contrary to Christian values. Climate Change is one. The Pope, for example, is a “leftist” when it comes to climate change.
 
You should go and read ABOUT CO2.

And when you reach my level ( yes I stand by my post about the heart magazine). I am not convinced that anyone on here knows what they are talking about!!!
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I cannot vouch for every graph that anyone every produced supporting climate change.
Click to expand...
Well you’re right, the graph I presented was not exactly the same one the IPCC included. Here is their chart:

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

But what do you mean you can’t vouch for it? It was put out by the IPCC and it looks nothing at all like the graph you described.
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.
Click to expand...
I spoke to Mann’s chart. I put Mann’s chart out for all to see, and it ought to be glaringly obvious that his chart is in no way similar. So, which chart do we think is true, the IPPC chart from the first AR or the entirely different one from the third AR?
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.
Click to expand...
Those values may describe Mann’s chart but they assuredly don’t describe what standard textbooks were apparently saying, which was not that the MWP was -0.2 but +0.3, or that the greatest period of warming was between 1850 and 1900.

This is one of the main reasons I don’t believe in AGW. Even the scientists won’t admit the obvious.
 
MichaelP3 said:
You should go and read ABOUT CO2.

And when you reach my level ( yes I stand by my post about the heart magazine). I am not convinced that anyone on here knows what they are talking about!!!
Click to expand...
If you really understand the subject as you claim it should be simple to refute the statements I’ve made, so go ahead, pick one and have at it. Show us all the failure to comprehend that lies at the heart of my comments.
 
A good rule of thumb that I go by is whenever someone tells me to go educate myself before I can participate, that usually means they don’t really know what they’re talking about.
 
Ender said:
If you really understand the subject as you claim it should be simple to refute the statements I’ve made, so go ahead, pick one and have at it. Show us all the failure to comprehend that lies at the heart of my comments.
Click to expand...

An excerpt (boldface mine)

It is hard to know which is greater: contrarians’ overstatement of the flaws in the historical temperature reconstruction from 1998 by Michael E. Mann and his colleagues or the ultimate insignificance of their argument to the case for climate change.

First, there is not simply one hockey-stick reconstruction of historical temperatures using one set of proxy data. Similar evidence for sharply increasing temperatures over the past couple of centuries has turned up independently while looking at ice cores, tree rings and other proxies for direct measurements, from many locations. Notwithstanding their differences, they corroborate that the planet has been getting sharply warmer.

A 2006 National Research Council review of the evidence concluded “with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries”—which is the section of the graph most relevant to current climate trends. The report placed less faith in the reconstructions back to A.D. 900, although it still viewed them as “plausible.” Medieval warm periods in Europe and Asia with temperatures comparable to those seen in the 20th century were therefore similarly plausible but might have been local phenomena: the report noted “the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.” And a research paper by Mann and his colleagues seems to confirm that the Medieval Warm Period and the “Little Ice Age” between 1400 and 1700 were both caused by shifts in solar radiance and other natural factors that do not seem to be happening today.

After the NRC review was released, another analysis by four statisticians, called the Wegman report, which was not formally peer-reviewed, was more critical of the hockey-stick paper. But correction of the errors it pointed out did not substantially change the shape of the hockey-stick graph. In 2008 Mann and his colleagues issued an updated version of the temperature reconstruction that echoed their earlier findings.

But hypothetically, even if the hockey stick was busted … What of it? The case for anthropogenic global warming originally came from studies of climate mechanics, not from reconstructions of past temperatures seeking a cause. Warnings about current warming trends came out years before Mann’s hockey-stick graph. Even if the world were incontrovertibly warmer 1,000 years ago, it would not change the fact that the recent rapid rise in CO2 explains the current episode of warming more credibly than any natural factor does—and that no natural factor seems poised to offset further warming in the years ahead.
 
Last edited:
In other words, factors like shifts in solar radiance change the warming of the earth for a limited time and to a limited degree. There is no reason to believe that a shift in climate due to ever-increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere will be of limited duration, as other causes such as temporary variations in solar radiation have been. (It is difficult to say whether there will get to be a point where increased cloud cover due to increasing temperatures will limit the impact of CO2-caused warming: that is, it can’t be assumed that a greenhouse gas would trap radiation to a degree linearly-related to the fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere.
 
Last edited:
Petra: Nothing in that article was particularly relevant to my point. What I was rejecting was the idea that only scientists can comment cogently on global warming, and that others simply don’t have the training and expertise to do so. By comparing Mann’s graph with historical temperature reconstructions the problem is obvious: Mann eliminated both the MWP and the LIA and, as I said, that was something even high school history students would be expected to notice.

The Scientific American article was actually quite poor, and didn’t address this point I raised: which graph more accurately represents the historical, global temperature, Mann’s or the one the IPCC first put out? I consider this more of the dissembling that is typical of the AGW side; they can’t even admit to obvious flaws.
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I cannot vouch for every graph that anyone every produced supporting climate change.
Click to expand...
Well you’re right, the graph I presented was not exactly the same one the IPCC included. Here is their chart:
Click to expand...
I see. You are not actually criticizing Mann and his hockey stick graph. You are criticizing the apparent inconsistency between Mann’s graph and the graph you cited from Arthur Holmes’ textbook on Principles of Physical Geology, which for some reason ended up in some IPCC report or other. I don’t know in what context the IPCC would republish Holmes’ hand drawn sketch (which obviously doesn’t have any data points). I have a hard time believing the IPCC used that graph in any substantial or meaningful way, so you will have to show the context of that graph if you expect its inclusion to be a reason for outrage.
Those values may describe Mann’s chart but they assuredly don’t describe what standard textbooks were apparently saying, which was not that the MWP was -0.2 but +0.3, or that the greatest period of warming was between 1850 and 1900.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should question those “standard textbooks” rather than the IPCC or Mann. So far you have only cited one such book, and recent temperature reconstructions of that period agree with Mann more than Holmes.
 
The yearly Catholic conference of science (this last one was at University of Notes Dame on humen evolution and the direction cybernetics will take us). My brother who was a starch climate denier went.

While I can’t give you names off the top of my head my brother did ask about global warming.

The panel unanimously said it’s a problem we need to address immediately. Regardless of who caused it we are making it worse.

Frankly when our best Catholic minds agree, that’s enough for me.
 
Tolle_Lege said:
40.png
Anrakyr:
The yearly Catholic conference of science (this last one was at University of Notes Dame on humen evolution and the direction cybernetics will take us).
Click to expand...
Sounds more like a secular sci-fi powwow than a Catholic conference. Not surprising, it’s Notre Dame. They jumped the shark a long time ago.
Click to expand...
Perfect example of an “ad hominem” response. It is the process of selectively discrediting sources of information rather than trying to refute the information they provide. In this case it is particularly notable because in the wider Catholic culture, Notre Dame does not carry the mark of shame you tacitly assume is universally recognized, unlike the show “Happy Days” to which you refer.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
Shakuhachi:
It is real
Click to expand...
They are sweltering in heat on the East Coast now.
“…EXCESSIVE HEAT WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL 8 PM EDT
SUNDAY…”
from Massachusetts weather bureau.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, but it’s not like that hasn’t happened in my lifetime before, so that is nothing new.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top