What do you think of climate change?

[Theo520]

One concern of the scientists studying this is the melting of the permafrost that could release huge amounts of methane gas that’s embedded, and methane gas creates 20 times more of the greenhouse effect than does the same units of CO2.

Please stop with the boogie man stories, the fear mongering.

Methane levels have been increasing, along with CO2, but we don’t see the warming as predicted by the models.

The models “as is” are junk

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Methane levels have been increasing, along with CO2, but we don’t see the warming as predicted by the models.

The models “as is” are junk

Actually, the models have been reasonably accurate.

 

[Metis1]

Exactly. If this was not true, then we would be told “false alarm” by the likes of our NAS, NASA, DoD, “Scientific American”, etc. But what should we expect from those who get their “science” from right-wing politicians and their media versus the actual scientists themselves.

 

[phaster]

what should we expect from those who get their “science” from right-wing politicians and their media versus the actual scientists themselves.

the difference of right vs left wing political leadership, I think can be explained by the fact that,…

given lots of “noise” and very little “signal” those w/ out rigorous formal training in a “hard” science and the scientific method are very susceptible to “confirmation bias”

…then there is another related problem,… an ‘illusion of confidence’ which is called the ‘Dunning-Kruger effect’

since this is a catholic forum, looked at another way seems to me denial of CC is one reason why I think mass attendance and new vocations continue to collapse,…

Why do Mass attendance and new vocations continue to collapse? Social Justice

i know many who have left because, due to the scandals, they feel the Church has lost its moral standing from the top down. I am not sure how that gets fixed. It will take a lot of time.

IOW,… the sweeping under the carpet of various scandals AND by actively resisting a topic of interest of younger individuals, the catholic church in the USA is only alienating itself AND is basically doing nothing to help fix the problem(s) associated w/ CC

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

…A 2018 Gallup analysis found a “global warming age gap” in some beliefs, attitudes, and risk perceptions. For example, 70% of adults aged 18 to 34 say they worry about global warming compared to 56% of those aged 55 or older.

Do younger generations care more about global warming? - Yale Program on Climate Change Communication

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

It’s Starting To Look Like God Won’t Save Us From Global Warming

Nearly four years ago, Pope Francis released a groundbreaking letter, Laudato Si, On the Care of Our Common Home, calling on the world — and its 1.2 billion Catholics — to curb manmade global warming.

“We are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system,” said the 2015 letter, known as an encyclical. “Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes.”

The Pope got to hang out with Leonardo DiCaprio, an environmentalist, and the United States Congress, where he enjoyed mixed applause as he also called for the end the death penalty, more kindness to immigrants, and better relations with Cuba.

“Deniers haven’t got a prayer,” said environmental groups at the time, hoping the encyclical, along with similar statements from many religious communities, would steer the devout toward supporting environmental action on moral grounds.

In hindsight, we can say that didn’t work out too well.

The Pope’s Climate Encyclical Didn’t Stop Global Warming

 

[Theo520]

Exactly. If this was not true, then we would be told “false alarm” by the likes of our NAS, NASA, DoD, “Scientific American”, etc. But what should we expect from those who get their “science” from right-wing politicians and their media versus the actual scientists themselves.

I get mine from actual scientists, and they say the models have bad assumptions. Even CERN says so.

 

[LukeShalz]

Global warming is the globe… getting warmer. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The science shows just that.

 

[Metis1]

The NAS works on the basis of scientific consensus of those that specialize in a various area of scientific research, and this is the #1 scientific advisory that informs both the Legislative and Executive Branches here in the States. In regards to global warming, they have made it clear that this is quite clearly happening and that it is largely human actions that are the main cause.

As a scientist, I strongly tend to go with the consensus since we do not work in isolation away from other scientists in our respective fields.

Therefore, to spout some Joe Schmoe-scientist as being a reputable response is not impressive, to say the least.

BTW, I was not commenting on projection models but on what is known with the research.

 

[HarryStotle]

Rome wasn’t built in a day, nor can we stop global warming overnight. But if we don’t take seriously what’s happening and make amends as we had been doing before electing President Bone-Spurs, then we’re as dumb as bricks.

So sorry to insult bricks, so my apologies to them.

Name calling may make you feel good, but it does degrade the respect you might otherwise get for your reasoned debate, such as it is.

There you go. Equal opportunity reproof.

 

[HarryStotle]

Global warming is the globe… getting warmer. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The science shows just that.

Yeah, no.

1. The global average temperature in the mid-20th century (1951-1980) was approximately the same as it was at the start of the Quaternary Ice Age 2.58 million years ago.
2. According to the HadCRUT4 Median the temperature anomalies for different periods in the 20 century were as follows:
   1900-1909: –0.40°C
   1951-1980: 0.05°C
   2009-2018: 0.59°C
   The apparent rise in temperature between 1900-1909 and 2009-2018 seems to be almost a full degree 0.99°C
3. However, the decadal mean of 1900-1909 was cooler than 95% of the past 11 300 years.
4. The decadal mean of 1900-1909 was ~0.45°C cooler than the start of the Quaternary Ice Age.
5. Put more graphically, the following is a graph of the temperature anomalies over the past 9350 years with the 1961-1990 average being the dotted horizontal line.

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

Not quite the same impression as is left by your graph which represents the red square above.

See how data selection makes all the difference?

We are seriously being misled.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

We are seriously being misled.

Yes, we are - by HarryStotle’s posting. Here is how:

1. The global average temperature in the mid-20th century (1951-1980) was approximately the same as it was at the start of the Quaternary Ice Age 2.58 million years ago.

While this may be a true statement, the implication is that it somehow discredits the claims of man-made climate change. It does not. But someone who does not understand how an effect can have several causes may very well think it does discredit AGW. Over the huge span of time covered by this statistic, many factors influenced climate, which experienced swings much greater than those projected for modern climate change. That does not mean that the projection are wrong, or that if true, they would not have serious consequences. This is an example of a statistic without an argument, leaving the imagination of the average reader to fill in the missing argument.

1. According to the HadCRUT4 Median the temperature anomalies for different periods in the 20 century were as follows:
   1900-1909: –0.40°C
   1951-1980: 0.05°C
   2009-2018: 0.59°C
   The apparent rise in temperature between 1900-1909 and 2009-2018 seems to be almost a full degree 0.99°C

This is another case of a statistic without an argument. Who knows what the intended implied argument against AGW is supposed to be?

1. However, the decadal mean of 1900-1909 was cooler than 95% of the past 11 300 years.
2. The decadal mean of 1900-1909 was ~0.45°C cooler than the start of the Quaternary Ice Age.

This is another reference to time periods so far in the past that other factors would naturally dominate. It does not contradict the projections.

1. Put more graphically, the following is a graph of the temperature anomalies over the past 9350 years with the 1961-1990 average being the dotted horizontal line.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Not quite the same impression as is left by your graph which represents the red square above.
See how data selection makes all the difference?

During most of the time period covered by that graph, the human population did not rely on a finely-tuned agricultural industry, nor did that population fill the inhabitable space the way we do now. Also the changes were so gradual that it was easier to adapt, both for human society and for flora and fauna. The mere fact that high temperatures existed in the past does not mean the human population would not suffer greatly if those temperatures were to occur suddenly and now.

 

[HarryStotle]

During most of the time period covered by that graph, the human population did not rely on a finely-tuned agricultural industry, nor did that population fill the inhabitable space the way we do now. Also the changes were so gradual that it was easier to adapt, both for human society and for flora and fauna. The mere fact that high temperatures existed in the past does not mean the human population would not suffer greatly if those temperatures were to occur suddenly and now.

For someone who spent a great deal of effort and time ostensibly disproving my post, you haven’t done much in the way of disproving.

But someone who does not understand how an effect can have several causes may very well think it does discredit AGW.

That point of yours can also apply to the current rise in temperature over the past 100 years, a rise that the alarmists attribute wholly to CO2 when, in fact, it has had a variety of causes (i.e., an effect can have several causes, as you say, or “many factors influence… climate.” They still do today.) Your point certainly doesn’t establish CO2 as the sole or main cause today. There were many factors in the past, and there are many factors today.

In fact, here is a graph of the past 10000 years showing temperature and CO2 levels that have been virtually inversely proportional to each other.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

As to “a finely-tuned agricultural industry,” that industry is doing very well these days thanks to increased CO2 availability that permits C3 plants (~85% of plants) to flourish with less water. Given that we may well be headed into a prolonged period of decreased solar activity and a potential mini ice age, a little CO2 buffering the loss of heat may work to offset global cooling and preserve millions of human lives.

 

[Kindnessmatters]

Yesterday I was helping my mother organize her home for sale and came across my old school papers including one about the inevitability that we would run out of fossil fuel completely within ten years, would be living in bubbles to protect ourselves from the impending ice age, and California would be gone by the year 2000 to rising tides. I wrote it 40 years ago.

Climate changes. We are part of the world, not foreign bodies upon it. We need.to be reasonable.in reducing waste and pollution but the climate wonks are out of control. It’s junk science designed to scare people.

 

[HarryStotle]

For those interested, this is a great video dismantling, in fine detail, much of the IPCC propaganda that has fueled much of the alarmism.

The above graphs on temperature anomalies were from that video.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But someone who does not understand how an effect can have several causes may very well think it does discredit AGW.

My point was to point out the errors and misleading methods in yours. That is all. If you want to know why CO2 is a major cause of recent warming, see the academic literature on the subject.

In fact, here is a graph of the past 10000 years showing temperature and CO2 levels that have been virtually inversely proportional to each other.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

This is yet another example of the introducing and irrelevant super-long time span where other factors dominate. Notice that in your graph, CO2 levels throughout that 10,000 year span are all below 300 ppm. We are well past that now. The way to investigate a correlation is to control for the other factors. By allowing a 10,000 year span where CO2 has been relatively low and constant, other factors naturally will have the dominant effect on temperature. But when we restrict the time span to something comparable to the time span over which CO2 has changed the fastest, scientists do indeed see a positive correlation.

As to “a finely-tuned agricultural industry,” that industry is doing very well these days thanks to increased CO2 availability that permits C3 plants (~85% of plants) to flourish with less water.

The main reason modern agriculture produces more food is from fertilizers made from fossil fuels. Where is the academic study that shows that atmospheric CO2 concentration rise is more responsible?

Given that we may well be headed into a prolonged period of decreased solar activity and a potential mini ice age…

Who is giving you that? It is not a “given.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yesterday I was helping my mother organize her home for sale and came across my old school papers including one about the inevitability that we would run out of fossil fuel completely within ten years, would be living in bubbles to protect ourselves from the impending ice age, and California would be gone by the year 2000 to rising tides. I wrote it 40 years ago.

Perhaps your school papers did not quite capture the academic understanding of the day, but rather the sensational media of the day.

Climate changes. We are part of the world, not foreign bodies upon it. We need.to be reasonable.in reducing waste and pollution but the climate wonks are out of control. It’s junk science designed to scare people.

The vast majority of climate scientists do not believe it is junk science.

For those interested, this is a great video dismantling, in fine detail, much of the IPCC propaganda that has fueled much of the alarmism.

Before you swallow whatever junk someone puts on YouTube, you should at least know who it is that is doing the shoveling. That video does not seem to identify the speaker. I would disregard it.

 

[Ender]

Before you swallow whatever junk someone puts on YouTube, you should at least know who it is that is doing the shoveling. That video does not seem to identify the speaker. I would disregard it.

It is a bad idea to reject something because of who says it rather than because of what is said. If you can’t decide whether a statement is true or false because of the argument presented you should withhold judgment instead of dismissing it because you don’t like the conclusion. I think pretty much everything put out by the IPCC is propaganda, but I deal with the assertions; I don’t just dismiss them.

 

[Kindnessmatters]

Current liberal hype is that the world will end in less than 12 years due to climate change, based on nothing but the empty-headed rantings of a bartender turned congresswoman. Among her solutions? Tear down every building in America and rebuild it. Any idea of the environmental impact of all that debris, including all the disturbed toxins … asbestos and lead, for example? Any idea of the environmental impact of manufacturing and transporting that volume of new building materials? Imagine how many trees would need to be harvested for lumber alone. It’s simply stupid.

On another data point shared by NOAH to support that the oceans are warming, we learned that they deliberately and knowingly shared bad numbers. Fake. Science. True data did not support their panic narrative.

We have a former President who argued one week that the coastal cities will be under water within eight years and the next week dropped over $15 million on a beachfront home in one of those doomed cities.

We have protestors ranting at the President and his supporters over leaving the climate accord, ignoring the fact that our country is ahead of any promises in that Accord anyway, and that he was right…Asia must do their part. China and India must do more.

I concede we need.to take care of the environment but science requires diapassionate truth. For example, we have learned plastic in the oceans breaks down within a few years when exposed to sunlight. Ecology alarmists want to quash that information. Why? We must understand the problem to.solve it. We need to triage resources.

The panic is political gamesmanship, not science. Similarly, we have fake scientists arguing polar bears are dying off from climate change when in truth, their numbers have increased.

I believe enough in the importance of ecology to drive a fuel efficient car, live in modest multi-family housing, and put a few decorative throw blankets out in my living room to avoid turning up the heat. I am lectured daily by carbon hogs in my immediate life and the media who preach end of the world scenarios while they drive massive SUVs, live in homes a thousand or more square feet larger than they possibly need, and can’t curb their shopping. Much of my ambivalence over climate alarmists is that the loudest are wasteful carbon hogs. Reasonable people are cutting back on what they consume but also see the fraud in the political spin.

If any of us worry about.the environment, we should make personal lifestyle changes. And as Catholics, we should seek truth even if we have to change our minds and face criticism.

I was recently at mass at a church I never attended before. In the homily the pastor stated that only God knows when the world will end. It is not for us to know. I agree. He was addressing the children and assuring them that there are no reasonable indications of anything other than that they will get to grow up and grow old. He advised them to work on their character, to do good works and avoid sin, to prepare for a good life as well as what comes.after this life. Good advice.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Before you swallow whatever junk someone puts on YouTube, you should at least know who it is that is doing the shoveling. That video does not seem to identify the speaker. I would disregard it.

It is a bad idea to reject something because of who says it rather than because of what is said. If you can’t decide whether a statement is true or false because of the argument presented you should withhold judgment instead of dismissing it because you don’t like the conclusion. I think pretty much everything put out by the IPCC is propaganda, but I deal with the assertions; I don’t just dismiss them.

This is advice best directed at HarryStotle who declared the video a “great video” without presenting any verification of any of the claims of the video. As for my response, dismissing a video is not the same thing as declaring it to be false. By dismissing it I am saying that such a video by an anonymous voice is not worth my time to chase down all the “facts” claimed therein. Life it too short.

 

[Ender]

Back in June (this thread has been open a long time) record high temperatures in France were used to bolster the argument for AGW. I suspect the record snowfall just experienced in the US will be dismissed as weather, not climate, reinforcing the observation that “Only warm weather events prove global warming. Cold weather events are just weather.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/03/early-snow-cover-record-set-for-usa-a-foot-of-snow-in-25-states/

This is on top of the cold records set last month.

Record cold and early snow over much of US east coast | wwltv.com

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Current liberal hype is that the world will end in less than 12 years due to climate change…

No, that is what is known as a straw man argument, promulgated by sensational media and those who want to mis-characterize the scientific (not liberal) claim that if carbon emissions remain on the current trajectory, the temperature rise will exceed the +1.5 degree limit at which it is claimed certain consequences will result. Those consequences are not “the end of the world”, but they are significant, and will cause much human suffering.

Among her solutions? Tear down every building in America and rebuild it.

I don’t know which “her” you mean, but I’ll bet it is not a scientist.

On another data point shared by NOAH to support that the oceans are warming, we learned that they deliberately and knowingly shared bad numbers.

No, you didn’t learn it. You saw someone claim it an you believed it. And I think you mean NOAA, not the guy who built the ark.

I concede we need.to take care of the environment but science requires diapassionate truth.

Read your own post and ask if it is dispassionate. (“empty-headed rantings”, “It’s simply stupid”, etc.)