What do you think of climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phaster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Finally, a Climate Change Documentary That Will Get You Excited to Fix It

Whether the audience is policy wonks, nature lovers, or environmental activists, documentaries on climate change still feel like a niche thing in 2019. Which is what makes Ice on Fire, the climate documentary co-produced and narrated by Leonardo DiCaprio that debuted Tuesday night on HBO, so refreshing. This isn’t a film for die-hard vegans or E&E News subscribers—it’s a film for nerds in the broadest sense.

…the goal of this beautifully shot, 90-minute documentary is to put a face on the scientists who’ve unearthed the fact that we’ve inadvertently embarked on a planet-wide climate experiment, and to let them show us how they know what they know. It’s also a film about solutions that, in a welcoming change of pace for 2019, doesn’t dwell on our gridlocked politics or Donald Trump. Here again, the focus is on science, technology, and letting ordinary people share a smorgasbord of potential ways out of our impending climate doom, from agriculture that heals the land and enhances the soil to technologies that pull carbon directly out of the air, allowing us to turn back the climate clock. In a world that often feels obsessed with the apocalypse, it leaves you feeling hopeful.

…if you’re looking for a climate film that educates without feeling overly preachy and envisions a future where we actually use our collective creativity to fix this mess, Ice on Fire hits the mark better than most.

earther.gizmodo[dot]com/finally-a-climate-change-documentary-that-will-get-you-1835448238
 
The bad winters are probably caused by the de-icing of the North Pole, that causes cold winds in the northern hemispheres. Here in Argentina we are close to winter and the temperature is still 16ºC, while when I was little it was near 0ºC. Climate change is real.
 
Oh fer cryin’ out loud. “our impending climate doom…” Yeah, right. Straight from the pages of The National Enquirer. Pure supermarket tabloid scare talk.
 
Oh fer cryin’ out loud. "our impending “xxx” doom…" Yeah, right. Straight from the pages of The National Enquirer. Pure supermarket tabloid scare talk.
hard to escape the basic infotainment formula,…

if it bleeds (explodes or is salacious), it leads,… that’s the MSN,… and hollywood too

my personal wish,… more science!!!
 
first heard of McKitrick 20+ years ago when he uncovered sloppy “science” and found buggy software
Global Warming Bombshell

A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.

…Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.

But it wasnt so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.

…blah, blah, blah (about bad software)

…The net result: the principal component will have a hockey stick shape even if most of the data do not.

McIntyre and McKitrick sent their detailed analysis to Nature magazine for publication, and it was extensively refereed. But their paper was finally rejected.

…If you look, youll see that McIntyre and McKitrick have found numerous other problems with the Mann analysis. I emphasize the bug in their PCA program simply because it is so blatant and so easy to understand. Apparently, Mann and his colleagues never tested their program with the standard Monte Carlo approach, or they would have discovered the error themselves.


technologyreview[dot]com/s/403256/global-warming-bombshell/
20 Years Later, The ‘Hockey Stick’ Graph Behind Waves Of Climate Alarmism Is Still In Dispute

It was 20 years ago, climate scientist Michael Mann published his famous “hockey stick” graph that he says “galvanized climate action” by showing unprecedented global warming.

Mann used the 20-year anniversary of the graph to opine on the “industry-funded” attacks “to discredit the iconic symbol of the human impact on our climate,” which Mann claimed had withstood criticism.


wattsupwiththat[dot]com/2018/04/30/20-years-later-the-hockey-stick-graph-behind-waves-of-climate-alarmism-is-still-in-dispute/
FWIW “industry-funded” attacks are sadly all too real,… as I mentioned to “edwest211” other day,…

that,… political mercenaries employed by talentless career politicians and various corporations like the status quo, so they will use propaganda and play mind games, to hide the truth!!!

mention attacks specifically because years after my seminar class @UCSD read that Roger Revelle was a target due to his prominence in CO2 studies

the relevant documents were spread out, so bundled them together,… makes for some interesting reading!!!

TinyURL[dot]com/RevelleDoubt
 
I’m a big fan of long form science documentaries,… so by “more science” being a geek I really like understanding why something works (the cause and effect if you will)

when climate activist try and raise alarm(s) about what is happening, and say 97% of those in the know agree that “doom and gloom” is here,… I’m kinda going OK,… what exactly is the mechanism for doom and gloom

I figure, if I understand the mechanism that is causing problems, that is the first step toward finding a fix
 
Beef is the largest dietary contributor to greenhouse gases for average people, and replacing it can halve a diner’s food-based carbon footprint and improve health, according to findings presented by the American Society for Nutrition.
 
The bad winters are probably caused by the de-icing of the North Pole, that causes cold winds in the northern hemispheres. Here in Argentina we are close to winter and the temperature is still 16ºC, while when I was little it was near 0ºC. Climate change is real.
Argentina has warmed just over 1C in the past 150+ years, about the same as the rest of the world.
Not 16C in less than 50 yrs.

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/argentina
 
Last edited:
Distortions depend on a misinformed public.
Not many of the public are aware of man’s relation to geologic time scale. In other words, how much of the earth’s history is occupied by mankind.

Human activity is an almost imperceptible blip in the time frame of Earth’s 4+ billion year history. If Earth’s history were compressed into a year, industrial activity is the last two seconds of that year.

In this perspective, it is easy to see that mankind vastly overestimates it’s own significance in affecting God’s creation. We are a truly self preoccupied people. Vast and radical changes in earth’s environment have been coming and going for billions of years, and mankind was nowhere to be seen.

We do affect the environment, but not to the hysterical degree that the AGW agenda would have you believe. Human beings are responsible for stewardship of God’s creation…not because we idolize “mother earth” or overestimate our importance, but because it is right and just to properly care for it to the good of all people.
 
Last edited:
I am not talking about average temperature but the local temperature here in Buenos Aires, in winter. And I live here, and I look at the weather predictions, and for these things I think I know better about the situation.
 
have a look at the “pitch” as they say in the startup world, would be interested in what catholics think about the social justice issue of climate change, given various knock on effects on humanity
here’s from a scientific perspective as well

Titled

Why an ice age occurs every 100,000 years: Climate and feedback effects explained

Excerpt:

The Milankovitch cycles
The explanation for the cyclical alternation of ice and warm periods stems from Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovitch (1879-1958), who calculated the changes in Earth’s orbit and the resulting insolation on Earth, thus becoming the first to describe that the cyclical changes in insolation are the result of an overlapping of a whole series of cycles: the tilt of Earth’s axis fluctuates by around two degrees in a 41,000-year cycle. Moreover, Earth’s axis gyrates in a cycle of 26,000 years, much like a spinning top. Finally, Earth’s elliptical orbit around the sun changes in a cycle of around 100,000 years in two respects: on the one hand, it changes from a weaker elliptical (circular) form into a stronger one. On the other hand, the axis of this ellipsis turns in the plane of Earth’s orbit. The spinning of Earth’s axis and the elliptical rotation of the axes cause the day on which Earth is closest to the sun (perihelion) to migrate through the calendar year in a cycle of around 20,000 years: currently, it is at the beginning of January; in around 10,000 years, however, it will be at the beginning of July.
Based on his calculations, in 1941 Milankovitch postulated that insolation in the summer characterises the ice and warm periods at sixty-five degrees north, a theory that was rejected by the science community during his lifetime. From the 1970s, however, it gradually became clearer that it essentially coincides with the climate archives in marine sediments and ice cores. Nowadays, Milankovitch’s theory is widely accepted. “Milankovitch’s idea that insolation determines the ice ages was right in principle,” says Blatter. “However, science soon recognised that additional feedback effects in the climate system were necessary to explain ice ages. We are now able to name and identify these effects accurately.”
here is from a scientific perspective. Supposedly we’ve had multiple ice ages according to this source, therefor multiple warmings, all before people were on the planet.

IOW multiple ice ages and global warmings, occurred without people being on the planet.

Not just as a Catholic but as someone who likes evidence , my first question would be, prove it with evidence (not theory) all properly referenced.
 
Last edited:
From Judith Curry’s blog:

Experts disagree on most aspects of climate change. Why do they disagree? I have covered this extensively before, the main reasons are summarized as:
  • Insufficient & inadequate observational evidence
  • Disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence (e.g. paleoclimate reconstructions, models)
  • Disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for linking and assessing the evidence
  • Assessments of areas of ambiguity & ignorance
  • Belief polarization as a result of politicization of the science
Claims of 97% consensus notwithstanding, Curry is surely right.
 
Last edited:
Regarding what was done to Roger Pielke, Jr, more from Judith Curry:

If you are unfamiliar with the details of all this, they are quite chilling. RPJr has prepared a twitter thread on his talk ‘Extreme Weather and Extreme Politics” which is a must read. Incidents include:
  • the coordinated effort of the Center for American Progress to get RPJr fired from his position on 538
  • shenanigans (corruption, really) in the IPCC AR4 Section 1.3.8.5 that passed off an unpublished graph as being published and miscited it, so that they could claim an influence of warming on disaster losses
  • Grijalval inquisition
  • Dr John Holdren (President Obama’s Director of Office of Science, Technology and Policy) posted a screed on the White House web page against RPJr and his findings on disasters and climate change, which were highly inappropriate (not to mention scientifically incorrect).
 
No one ia denying that the climate changes naturally. The thing is, with the emission of GHG we are accelerating the effect and making it more irreversible. Evidence? Look at Venus, its atmosphere is mostly CO2 and is the hottest planet in Solar System. Look at an IR spectrogram of CO2 and methane, they both absorb thermal radiation.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top