What do you think of climate change?

[Theo520]

basically from what I have seen, hardly anyone knows blah, blah, blah about basic properties of CO2 and people in general have very little basic understanding of science/math,… #sad

AGAIN, why to you keep trying to pretend the issue is lack of knowledge about CO2, when it’s all about the feedback.

You’ve not refuted one post I’ve made, or really engaged with what I said

There really isn’t any dispute among opposing ‘experts’ that CO2 is a GHG and will warm the earth about 1C with doubling, due the physics of radiative forcing.

The whole climate change dispute is about the feedbacks that are second order effects. The climate models have thousand of ‘feedbacks’ written into their code and they are projected to cause anywhere from 0.5 to 3.5C in additional warming because of the increased CO2.

If the discussion and research was focused on validating the feedbacks, we could come to a true consensus.

I understand CO2 radiative forcing, but was hoping to have you recognize it’s not the major contributor in projected warming. For most estimates, over 2/3 of warming is being driven by the feedbacks.

None of the experts disagree on the direct impact from elevated C02 levels

• They agree on how much warming will be contributed for a given increase
• They agree on how it changes ocean PH levels

The experts do however disagree on the second order effects, the ‘feedbacks’. In particular, they don’t agree on how it will change water vapor, another GHG.

The battle to gain broad consensus and action resides in gaining consensus on the feedbacks and their impact.

 

[Ender]

so everyone knows blah, blah, blah about basic properties of CO2 and everyone has a good basic understanding of the science of CC,… really?!

My goodness, had I expected you to take me literally I would have said “everyone knows” instead.

as I said the big long-term picture is relatively easy to understand because CO2 produced by mankind gradually heats up the Earth’s surface temperatures…

You appear to have stumbled on the fault Judith Curry addressed:

But some natural phenomena are intrinsically complex and attempts to represent them in over- simplified fashion are disastrous.

The pitfall, which has not always been avoided, is in claiming–because an essential element has been understood–that it necessarily explains what is seen in nature.

Climate is astonishingly complex, and believing that because “we” understand the chemistry of CO2 we can understand climate is like believing that because we know how to hang a picture we know how to build a house.

climate on the other hand, looks at the big picture, over long time spans, and is pretty simple by comparison

Then again, maybe not.

The external forcing hypothesis is based on strong understanding of greenhouse-gas forcing, but low-to-very-low levels of understanding of other external forcings – clouds, aerosols, solar influence, for examples. Extreme increases in projected temperatures rely on incomplete understanding of reinforcing consequences of the original CO2-induced warming, i.e. positive feedbacks. Little is understood about potential damping mechanisms – e.g. clouds, aerosols, atmospheric convection, and precipitation. Likewise, little is fully understood about, or attributed to, intrinsic dynamics. (Judith Curry)

Understanding CO2 is only a very small part of understanding climate.

 

[phaster]

when revelle and keeling introduced me to the idea of “man’s great geophysical experiment” and their fundamental research on CO2,… I came to realize they in a round about way were asking about the fermi paradox which is a profound philosophical question

the paradox is based on a simple question that anyone looking out at the night sky has probably asked themselves,… does life exist in other parts of the universe or are we alone here on this pale blue dot

anyway one takeaway from my exposure to revelle was his advise to look at a problem from various points of view, in order to get a feel for what is actually happening

long story short, when science confirmed the phenomenon of “global dimming” I had to conclude mankind is indeed causing global warming

furthermore, I sadly find mankind is not taking care of creation because science has documented a wide diversity of life in the oceans and on the land is going extinct (essentially due to “pollution” and “overexploitation of resources”)

…as catholics we know what is written in the bible

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

And he said: “Let us make Man to our image and likeness. And let him rule over the fish of the sea, and the flying creatures of the air, and the wild beasts, and the entire earth, and every animal that moves on the earth.” And God created man to his own image; to the image of God he created him; male and female, he created them. And God blessed them, and he said, “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and the flying creatures of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

Genesis 1:26-28 CPDV

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

Matthew 7:15 CPDV

point being if trends continue and “Merchants of Doubt” continue to hold sway in the arena of public opinion,… there is no getting around the bottom line fact that by ignoring the many signs that “faith and science” has given us,… mankind’s collective hubris is going to result in an exorbitant price being paid, for not taking care of creation!

basically I have no interest in arguing endlessly over existing heuristic computer models

The Beginner's Guide to Representative Concentration Pathways

nor have I an interest to debate so the called “settled science” you have offered, because doing so does nothing to address existing economic and natural resource mismanagement by mankind,… and continuing down the same old path is a quagmire I wish to avoid,… so I’ll take my leave and just say, hope you and all who stumble across this post,… ponder the meaning of Laudato Si

and hopefully you’ll discuss the topic w/ others

Jesus coming back too late? Sacred Scripture

I am not an environmentalist, I have no problem with you or millennials. I do think that this statement, which by the way I congratulate you for being honest about, demonstrates the prevalent human short term thinking that has led to things like ocean garbage patches and the well deserved self poisoning that such behavior creates. The human race deserves everything it gets, in terms of climate change consequences. Earth and our minds are a gift from God to use, not to spoil, not to corru…

 

[otjm]

Climate does seem to be changing; as it has ever since the beginning of creation. For the moment, setting aside whether or not carbon is causing that, I would relate the following:

Oregon has been in the news the last few weeks over the Republican Senators walking out in order to stop a Cap and Trade bill being pushed by the super majority of Democrats in the Senate.

Some perspective: Oregon according to what I have read is contributing 0.14% of the total carbon emissions; the Cap and Trade bill would not remove that (and I could not even find what it would reduce the percentage to).

To put that in perspective: the Columbia River currently has a flow rate at Vancouver Wa. of 200,000 cubic feet of water per second. If one were to dump 0.14% more water into the Columbia, that would amount to 280 cubic feet of water added. And that is well less than a rounding error of the total flow rate. In other words, it would not be measurable by current instruments. If you want it in gallons, that is the equivalent of dumping 2,094.546 gallons of water into a river in which there is 1,496,104 gallons per second flowing by. Are there exactly that many gallons flowing per second? See the rounding error comment above.

And somewhere 60+ years ago I learned that through photosynthesis, plants absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen. I suspect that has not changed, but we may well have reduced the amount of plant material sufficiently to cause a reduction in how much is converted; if so, logic would seem to indicate we need to do more planting.

Given how highly this has been politicized, I have n clue where the truth actually resides as to whether or not Man is the source of severe weather; one would have to ask then why the earth has had minor and major ice ages… Life has been going extinct, it appears, somewhere after the earth formed as inhabitable to life. Should Man work to reduce impact? Of course. But can we have a conversation based on all the facts? I am old enough to remember the panic a few decades ago predicting the imminent starvation of major populations in the world due to an exponential increase in population and only an arithmetic increase in food production - both of which were absolutely not true. So pardon my skepticism.

 

[Ender]

Given how highly this has been politicized…

That of course is the problem.

In theory, science provides an objective framework for finding truths about the world. But in practice, science is conducted by humans with biases, often blind to them. To ignore how the practice of science is intertwined with politics is to be blind, in turn, to the coming changes.

What are the facts in the climate science debate?

• Average global surface temperatures have overall increased for the past 100+ years
• Carbon dioxide has an infrared emission spectra
• Humans have been adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

That is pretty much it, in terms of verifiable, generally agreed upon scientific facts surrounding the major elements of climate change debate.

Human caused global warming is a theory . The assertion that human caused global warming is dangerous is an hypothesis . The assertion that nearly all or most of the warming since 1950 has been caused by humans is disputed by many scientists, in spite of the highly confident consensus statement by the IPCC. The issue of ‘dangerous’ climate change is wrapped up in values, and science has next to nothing to say about this. (J Curry)

One of the more politicized aspects of this debate is the refusal to recognize these rather straightforward facts.

 

[otjm]

I suspect you follow the issue more closely than I do, as I hardly pay any attention to it at all. And that, in part, is due to prior experience going back to the “starvation of the world” issue in the 60’s. From a very great distance, it appears to me that both have an underlying issue of liberals on one side and conservatives on the other, and beneath that is an attitude/perspective of control. But that can be left to the sociologists and philosophers.

My understanding (and again, I pay little attention) is that global warming has not proved itself true in measurements, which have either gone reverse, or at least not indicative of modeling, and so we now have shifted the conversation from “the world is going hothouse” to the world is now in climate chaos. Yes? Or is it something else afoot?

 

[Odilon]

Nothing new here, the earth’s climate changes all the time and has done so since it was formed. There have been many hot times and cold times in the life of this planet and animal types have come and gone as well. The only difference these days is too many people worship what has been created, not who created it all.

 

[phaster]

Climate change made Europe’s mega-heatwave five times more likely

Scientists rushed to study whether the scorching temperatures last week were linked to global warming.

After a series of unusually hot summers, France and other parts of Europe last week experienced another intense heatwave that broke temperature records across the continent.

For one group of climate scientists, the event presented a rare opportunity to rapidly analyse whether the heatwave — which made headlines around the world — could be attributed to global warming. After a seven-day analysis, their results are in: climate change made the temperatures reached in France last week at least five times more likely than they would be in a world without global warming.

The scientists with the World Weather Attribution project decided to take action when they saw the heatwave coming, and ended up performing a near real-time analysis while at a climate conference in Toulouse, France.

“We discussed our approach and gathered data and looked at climate models between talks,” says Friederike Otto, a climate researcher at the University of Oxford, UK. “It was really good to have our attribution group all in one place and discuss our work with others. We got a lot of helpful feedback from the meeting.”

ATTRIBUTION SCIENCE
To find out whether global warming has affected the likelihood of a real event, scientists look at existing weather records and compare them with models, including simulations of how the weather would behave in a world that wasn’t warming. The concept has matured since it was conceived more than a decade ago, but it is probabilistic by nature.

“Some say the uncertainties are too big,” says Otto. “There are indeed caveats, mostly to do with imperfect climate models. But even with large uncertainty bars, we think it is useful to provide quantitative evidence for how climate change is affecting extreme weather.”

Using their models, the researchers calculated that the average temperatures reached over the hottest three-day day stretch in France — around 28 °C — were at least five times more likely because of climate change.

But in a second analysis that looked at historical temperature records over the past century, rather than models, the team calculated that the likelihood of such a heatwave in June has in fact increased 100-fold since around 1900, owing to the combined influence of climate change and other factors, such as air pollution.

The probability calculated by the models is likely to be an underestimate, say the researchers — who note that their study has not yet been peer reviewed. That’s because unlike the real-world data, the simulations are affected only by climate-related factors, and don’t represent aspects such as changes in cloud cover, land use, irrigation and air pollution, which all seem to have an influence on temperature, says Robert Vautard, a climate researcher at the Laboratory for Climate and Environmental Sciences in Gif-sur-Yvette, France, who is part of the attribution team.

Climate change made Europe’s mega-heatwave five times more likely

USN rear admiral

 

[Ender]

But in a second analysis that looked at historical temperature records over the past century, rather than models, the team calculated that the likelihood of such a heatwave in June has in fact increased 100-fold since around 1900, owing to the combined influence of climate change and other factors, such as air pollution.

Let’s review what is generally accepted as true:

• Average global surface temperatures have overall increased for the past 100+ years

So, if pretty much everyone acknowledges that average temperatures have increased since 1900, I’m thinking it was likely that some part of the world was going to experience a record heat wave some summer. I’m sure a Vegas bookie could calculate the odds of that happening.

All of that is mildly interesting given that the real question remains not only unanswered but unaddressed: what is causing (has caused) the warming?

 

[Theo520]

ATTRIBUTION SCIENCE

We have global measurements of extreme weather events, the data will either support CAGW projections, or it won’t. So far it doesn’t.

To me, Attribution Science reeks of Junk Science in pretending they can blame individual weather events on the nefarious global warming. It circumvents the need to show a broader trend.
.
Junk science is a type of science often practiced when politics and business become involved in research. Generally, it involves the cynical cherry picking of data and results to suit a particular agenda.

 

[phaster]

To me, Attribution Science reeks of Junk Science in pretending they can blame individual weather events on the nefarious global warming.

sigh,… attribution studies,… junk science?!

in the YouTube video

w/ individuals presenting and doing a Q and A session at the US academy of sciences,… on the topic of attribution studies

…so for example,… on one side w/ years of schooling/work-experience w/ diverse backgrounds like

Dr. J. Marshall Shepherd
who led the American Meteorological Society

Dr. Marshall Shepherd - Home

USN (Ret) Rear Admiral, Dr. David W. Titley

Rear Admiral David W. Titley, USN (Ret) « The Center for Climate & Security

Dr. Theodore Sheppard
the Grantham professor of climate science at the University of Reading (a leading center of atmospheric science in the UK)
http://www.reading.ac.uk/internal/staffportal/news/articles/spsn-441821.aspx

Dr. John Walsh
the president’s professor of global climate change in
the International Arctic research center at the university of Alaska
http://www.atmos.illinois.edu/~walsh/

vs.

…random individuals on a catholic answers forum,… that sort of remind me of armchair quarterback(s) or perhaps even fictional characters on TV

Internet Trolling with Statler & Waldorf

just sayin,… seems there’s no contest which side most likely knows more “science”

…now you’ll have to pardon me while I ponder if I just committed a sin, by using what I thought was a humorous comparison of mankind’s arrogance writ large,… to two muppets

Glimpses of Divine Humor | Catholic Answers Magazine

https://www.churchofstpatrick.org/blog/news/does-god-have-a-sense-of-humor

or was the muppets insight perhaps some kind of divine intervention and a prophetic message of sorts, about basic human nature,… that underachievers are overestimating their god given “talents” (i.e. Dunning-Kruger effect) WRT understanding various problems climate change will cause

…and the havoc of climate change is divine judgment for mankind’s hubris

A Judgement By Fire - The American Conservative

 

[sebo3e]

To me climate change is something what keeps you away from faith because its part of the world yet there so much tough on it that on christian faith i hardly ever heared what can we do about christian problems in our world instead what can we do for our planet erath sadly i always wondered was climate change something made as pagan worship just asking my self that

thinks about it my freinds if there so much talk about climate change and push and forcing like today vegan propaganda i know i cant mix things but its just smilar how this is forced upon us consantly bombarded climate change climate change do something

i ever wished to hear this

What can we do for our christian brother and sister to improve our faith in life instead so leave this worldy stuff and keep our faith rather today worldy stuff

 

[DIERM]

So odd that the cry of “Junk Science” comes from those here come from those with the knowledge of high school science classes from years ago, or lower level college survey classes in science.

Also so odd that the stance on climate change is so politically based (the left as well as the right). On the upside, we are seeing a more accurate description of the issue as “climate change” as opposed to “global warming”…however that does not remove the political argument where one side wants to blame it on man, and the other side wants to deny its even happening.

But oddest of all, is that this, a Catholic website, has so few who are more politically and economically motivated (again, left and right), than spiritually, by not clamoring for good stewardship in regards to God’s creation.

 

[sebo3e]

That s interesting observation my freind do you think that climate change aka global warming has something to do with pagan worship as it says mother erath lets save the erath etc what s your toughs on it how do you see that?

and in your opinion how do you see the verse as context in bible where explains something to not follow the world not shure what verse is that need to check do you remember?

 

[Theo520]

sigh

WOW, you stopped ignoring my posts!!!

Interesting that you only respond to the post where I express my opinion (clearly stated). You ignored every post where I referenced the science of AGW.

I will go through your supplied links on attribution science. I won’t ignore your arguments as you have mine.

 

[sebo3e]

Hey Theo520 what s your toughs on all this going with the world about climate change?

Do you belive we christians should stay away from such liberal bombarding news or follow?

 

[KyPerson]

Climate has always changed and will continue to do so. I try to live a simple life. I live in a small house and own a small car. I recycle everything I can. I have to struggle to generate one bag of garbage a month. One good volcanic eruption here will change the climate in ways we can’t even begin to imagine.

 

[Theo520]

Hey Theo520 what s your toughs on all this going with the world about climate change?

Do you belive we christians should stay away from such liberal bombarding news or follow?

It’s a very important issue, the care for our environment. I just don’t think it can be neatly rolled up into one single issue with carbon fuels as the villain.

The world can address air pollution quickly and without swapping out their installed means of generating power. The US and other 1st world countries did this many decades ago, the technology is affordable. Similarly, most other forms of pollution can be greatly reduced with existing proven methods already used in the developed world. Case in point, the problem of plastics in the ocean comes from the 3rd world, not the 1st world. It can readily be contained and cleaned up without completely disrupting economics.

Regarding CO2, Christians should acquaint themselves with the actual science instead of giving knee jerk reactions that it is either ‘all good’ or ‘evil incarnate’ The truth lies in the middle.

Access to cheap and reliable power saves many lives in the developing world, and greatly improves their quality of life. It would be unchristian to deprive Papua New Guinea or rural India of access to affordable power.

 

[sebo3e]

Yeah i agree with that what you said theo520 indeed that makes alot sense

Christians should stay away from green movement because there so many lies already and damage s done and its harmfull for society indeed plus today green movement climate change is already proven debunked and anti sceince right?

saw youtube videoes aboutt his debunking it even sceince on the news mention about water rise and so many other things i wonder why so many news are spreading so much myths?

to you is climate change a religion today?

You know why i am moust happy?

because i stay away from such many cults maybe this what i have could be something what keeps me away from such worldy things what can lead me astray currently i just waked up but before that i didnt agree with the world about such issues either
that s why i wonder

Is holy spirit leading me from such things to be in faith?

 

[Theo520]

in the YouTube video

The video doesn’t support claiming extreme weather events are caused by AGW, it says AGW can be a man made contributing attribute/cause. Just as is land use, flood control, Urban Heat Island effect (man made). Yes, we do need to develop a deeper understanding of combined contributions and risks.

The attribution studies he references do not appear to identify what aspect of man is the key attribute.

• Slide on Cold Outbreaks: Wouldn’t the reduction in cold outbreaks in Europe be greatly influence by land use and ever increasing population? Attributing a change to AGW should show far better in areas where population densities haven’t greatly increased and land usage hasn’t changed significantly…
• Slide on Flooding: This is a comparison with local climate models. Also doesn’t appear to differentiate land use impacts. Finally, attributing the impacts of AGW back to 1900 are bogus, they only point to model deficiencies.

Extreme heat and cold events are impacted by man, by land use and perhaps by AGW. His slide at 27:15 fundamentally confirms/admits we don’t yet have the knowledge to rely on attribution science outside these two extreme events, though it does offer potential for the future.