What do you think of climate change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter phaster
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’d also be intersted in your thoughts on cutting emissions by so much that temperatures start going the other way. Obviously if we can effect temperature increases, we can also effect temperature decreases. In that same line of thought…we are much close to the lower limit of co2 concentration for man to survive than the higher limit. Would you have any concern about drastically reducing the co2 in the atmosphere?
 
RCIAGraduate said:
How would you respond to career scientists, including fellow Catholics (there was a Catholic saying this) saying that people are misinformed on an issue, they may very well believe is of critical importance?
Click to expand...
If you think I am misinformed on an issue: prove it; don’t just assert that I’m wrong. Make a statement, take a position on some claim related to climate change, and defend it. We’ll see whose position is more defensible, just don’t assume the claim “most scientists think…” is meaningful. Either data and logic support your position or they don’t, and an appeal to authority is neither.
 
Thanks, and I am.

Our oldest daughter was asked by a former colleague of mine a couple of years after I retired how I was enjoying retirement, and her response “Too much”. Now my #1 job is to spoil our grandkids, and my wife and I are doing a wonderful job at that!

BTW, if you haven’t retired yet, maybe do yourself a favor and take a seminar on retirement, but not just on the finances. It was one of the best things I could have done, especially since retirement can be much more challenging than people tend to think. Studies have shown that it’s the #2 most age-related time of stress, with the mid-teenage years being #1.
 
CatholicSooner said:
What about the many scientists that say you are wrong? The media likes to make it look like 99% or whatever of scientists agree on man made climate change. That is simply a lie though.

And more importantly, I have never had any scientist be able to answer my question I posed recently. If the increase in temperature is due to increased concentration of CO2, why do we see temperature rise way before co2 concentrations rise? Sometimes as much as 400 years before.
Click to expand...
The Paris Agreement ironed that all out, and it was just absolutely amazing that so many countries accepted what the research had been showing and then promised to take responsibility. Unfortunately, most countries promised but not all have delivered. The research has been very consistent on this in recent decades, discounting other possible causes other than human endeavor.

CO2 is not the only item that can and has affected climate change. Another known factor is higher levels of methane gas, which causes roughly 20 times more heat retention than CO2. Also, changes in Earth’s orbit can and has caused changes at times, as well as has volcanic activity [cooling effect]. Also, the massive cutting down of forests worldwide has an effect.

But the pattern in recent decades, which was predicted even decades before, have shown a global warming pattern, which should be obvious based on what the measurements are showing and being reported on yearly. Most other potential factors have shown no relationship to what we’re seeing.

The bottom line: there’s plenty of evidence dealing with what can and is causing global warming, but there are no factors that provide contrary evidence.
 
Last edited:
Metis1 said:
40.png
CatholicSooner:
What about the many scientists that say you are wrong? The media likes to make it look like 99% or whatever of scientists agree on man made climate change. That is simply a lie though.

And more importantly, I have never had any scientist be able to answer my question I posed recently. If the increase in temperature is due to increased concentration of CO2, why do we see temperature rise way before co2 concentrations rise? Sometimes as much as 400 years before.
Click to expand...
The Paris Agreement ironed that all out, and it was just absolutely amazing that so many countries accepted what the research had been showing and then promised to take responsibility. Unfortunately, most countries promised but not all have delivered. The research has been very consistent on this in recent decades, discounting other possible causes other than human endeavor.

CO2 is not the only item that can and has affected climate change. Another known factor is higher levels of methane gas, which causes roughly 20 times more heat retention than CO2. Also, changes in Earth’s orbit can and has caused changes at times, as well as has volcanic activity [cooling effect]. Also, the massive cutting down of forests worldwide has an effect.

But the pattern in recent decades, which was predicted even decades before, have shown a global warming pattern, which should be obvious based on what the measurements are showing and being reported on yearly. Most other potential factors have shown no relationship to what we’re seeing.

The bottom line: there’s plenty of evidence dealing with what can and is causing global warming, but there are no factors that provide contrary evidence.
Click to expand...
Well here is where you lose everyone. “The last decades”
The last decades is a fraction of a second in history and there are numerous times in the past that have shown higher warming trends than we are currently in before the industrial revolution. So how can scientists be so certain that what man is doing is what is causing the warming? You yourself mentioned that there are numerous factors (which in itself is funny because this is never mentioned until pressed. usually it is strictly co2).

I’ve been saying it since the late 90s. These climate change scientists are going to look pretty silly just like the ice age scientists in the 70s look now. Our grandchildren are going to be mocking you guys when they are older
 
Believe in what you want to believe, I guess.

As for me, I tend to go in the direction that the peer-reviewed evidence takes me. “Scientific American”, and other actual peer-reviewed science sources, has been covering this for decades now, and the evidence on this is overwhelming, pretty much putting it into the “slam-dunk” category over the last two decades. .
 
Last edited:
Metis1 said:
BTW, if you haven’t retired yet, maybe do yourself a favor and take a seminar on retirement, but not just on the finances. It was one of the best things I could have done, especially since retirement can be much more challenging than people tend to think. Studies have shown that it’s the #2 most age-related time of stress, with the mid-teenage years being #1.
Click to expand...
Actually, I’m a young adult who is going to (eventually) enter the workforce, rather late than others (and with no advice)? Also, I live in a place with high living costs so when I’m on my own, that’ll be challenging (I don’t think I can move even if I wanted to with no base of experience). Any advice there?
 
Metis1 said:
Believe in what you want to believe, I guess.

As for me, I tend to go in the direction that the peer-reviewed evidence takes me. “Scientific American”, and other actual peer-reviewed science sources, has been covering this for decades now, and the evidence on this is overwhelming, pretty much putting it into the “slam-dunk” category over the last two decades. .
Click to expand...
again, you are looking at decades.

That is all I will say. That is nothing to a climate scientist.

How about explaining the 15-20 year temp stall even though co2 ppm were sky rocketing?

Again, time will tell. I seem to remember we were supposed to be extinct already. Maybe in anothe 12 years we will be
 
I’m not sure when humans came about but here is a graph that goes back millions of years

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Solar output was also much lower, not shown on your chart. This goes into it better than I could and conveniently he’s discussing the exact chart you posted.


As is asked in the video, why was it so hot millions of years ago when the sun output was lower?

Also worth watching until 5:51 when he shows the original temperature sketch drawn 20 years ago (did you mean to leave out 20+ years of data?)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

and an updated reconstruction using more data
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Greetings in Christ,

The climate has, since the Earth was created, always been changing. It is not a surpise that it continues to change. There are many factors that affect climate. According to Patrick Moore, co-founder of Green Peace, (I am not quoting but paraphrasing), the Earth has been warming for hundreds of years. The rate has been steady for fifthy years.

I think that CO2 emission is also a factor. It is scientifically known that CO2 can trap heat. I think that green energy should be prioritized and we shoudl try to, within reason, reduce CO2 emission. I think that the warming we are experiencing and will cotninue to experience isn’t catastrophic. It is probably very mild. Climate change is a problem, but not a huge one in the big picture. Also, there can be positive effects from climate change. Lastly, the “97%” Concensus is not true. It is a distortion of what scientists believe. Lastly, graphs show that temperature changes and CO2 levels have no correlation. In fact, they are usually out of sync with each other.

God bless
 
Bill6 said:
Lastly, graphs show that temperature changes and CO2 levels have no correlation. In fact, they are usually out of sync with each other.

God bless
Click to expand...
New graphs from NASA and NOAA show that temperature change and CO2 levels correlate quite nicely. Unfortunately, that correlation is from interpolating a great deal of the temperature data with “estimated” or enhanced temperature readings. In other words, fabricated data.

 
HarryStotle said:
New graphs from NASA and NOAA show that temperature change and CO2 levels correlate quite nicely. Unfortunately, that correlation is from interpolating a great deal of the temperature data with “estimated” or enhanced temperature readings. In other words, fabricated data.
Click to expand...
I watched that video and have to say I was astonished at the extent of the chicanery. I always believed the data was being massaged to tell the tale they wanted told, but I didn’t expect to see it modified that extensively.
 
Ender said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
New graphs from NASA and NOAA show that temperature change and CO2 levels correlate quite nicely. Unfortunately, that correlation is from interpolating a great deal of the temperature data with “estimated” or enhanced temperature readings. In other words, fabricated data.
Click to expand...
I watched that video and have to say I was astonished at the extent of the chicanery. I always believed the data was being massaged to tell the tale they wanted told, but I didn’t expect to see it modified that extensively.
Click to expand...
As I pointed out in another thread, this could be the alternate reality we are facing:


If that is the case, then it would be absolutely criminal of scientists to be fudging data in the direction that could radically undermine the steps the world ought to be taking to prepare itself for 30+ years of a mini ice age.

These “science-guys” had better start coming completely clean on methods and motives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top