Did the Pope just call skeptics on man-made climate change stupid?


#84

Interesting observation Ridgerunner. However this is an example of a limited data set. Some may call it special pleading since:

  1. There are also areas of the globe that have been seeing an increase of flora and fauna as well due to natural forcings (climatic changes).

  2. Correlation is not equal to causation. If 10 people standing on a roadway suddenly open their umbrellas followed closely by a heavy downpour do we assume that because there is a correlation between umbrella opening and rainfall that the cause of the rainfall was the opening of umbrellas?
    No. Root cause analysis is the correct way to find out the caused of any observed phenomenon. Anything else is at worst superstition.

  3. Many acclaimed scientists disagree that mankind has had any significant effect on the planet due to CO2 our contribution (whether due to cutting down trees or producing more CO2) Nils Axel Morner et al have shown that things like sea level rises and extreme weather activity has not increased and in the case of extreme weather has actually decreased notwithstanding the recent outlier of hurricane activity up from the last 2 decades of decreased activity in the ITCZ.


#85

You said:

found that 70% in the US think climate change is real, but only 58% think it is caused by humans. These numbers are much lower than in other developed countries.

The countries in which these numbers are higher I suspect it is because their populations have been conditioned to accept whatever edict the establishment has handed to them (be it the EU etc) America has its flaws but it was built on revolution and due to the revolutionary and self deterministic history and culture of it’s people still are able to question things instead of blindly accepting them. This is fast disappearing but it still does exist. You will find that less Americans trust government and politicians than do populations in Europe who are members of the EU.

You said: "_**

But Irma was the most powerful hurricane ever recorded. As scientists keep pointing out (but I guess some people don’t pay attention), it’s not the number of hurricanes, it’s the severity of them that’s changing. Why? Because the oceans are warmer, leading to more powerful hurricanes.

**_"

There is no scientific basis for this claim. Warmer surface temps is but one ingredient of several all of which must come together at the right time and place and in the right amounts to create a hurricane. See Dr. Roy Spencer’s comments on it and check the last 100 years of hurricane activity and plot it along with CO2 levels over the last century against time on the x axis and you will see that there is not even a correlation (not that a correlation would mean anything anyway).

You said:

“Think of the earth as a scale, with equal weights on each side. Say, 100 pounds on each side. It’s balanced. What happens when you add a tiny fraction to one side, say 1 once? One side of the scale moves down. Was the one ounce enough to shift the balance? Of course.”

No this is a strawman argument. What you have described is a closed system with input and results. The Earth is not a closed system. It is far more dynamic and adaptable than that anyway. For example science has shown that:

  1. The main source of Heat energy is the Sun.

  2. When the Sun is at a solar minimum it allows cosmic radiation to enter the earth’s atmosphere causing warming

  3. H2O is the majority greenhouse gas and when the earth gets warm more clouds are created

  4. More clouds increase the amount of H2O in the atmosphere and therefore increases warming by trapping heat being reflected or radiated off the surface.

  5. At the same time the space facing side of the clouds reflect heat energy from the SUn and from cosmic radiation preventing more heat from coming in.

  6. clouds do not form and remain over the entire earth at the same time locking in all the heat. Heat energy eventually escapes the earth’s atmosphere and is radiated or reflected back out into space.

Given what I have just described it would not be appropriate to liken the Earth to a simple scale.

Cheers.


#86

It’s not a hard concept. CO2 absorbs UV radiation, but re-emission properties means it is inevitable that if you add more CO2 to the atmosphere, more heat will get trapped. The most extreme example of that would be Venus, whose dense and predominantly CO2 atmosphere traps far more solar radiation than Earth’s.

In other words, trapping of thermal radiation is an inevitable consequence. There’s no getting around it. It is thermodynamics. Unless you have some means like some as-yet undiscovered heat sink that allows the radiating of heat into space, it is simply a physical reality that increasing CO2 PPM will trap more solar energy in the lower atmosphere and oceans.

In many cases the fossil fuel industry did come up with these ideas, via “think tanks” like the Heartland Institute, which are essentially fossil fuel-funded propaganda machines.


#87

And the Pope certainly believes that there is a strong consensus amongst scientists regarding man-made climate change, and as such, he’s perfectly prudent to abide by such a scientific consensus.

I mean no disrespect to Our Pope. I think it is acceptable that we can disagree on matters outside of faith and morals. Science for one is not done by consensus even though there is no consensus on AGW.

My concern is what I consider the brow beating of the faithful over their very legitimate concern over the lack of evidence to support a claim which is being used to attempt to enact draconian laws and threatens the poor with death and starvation if implemented the way that many of those with power want it to be.


#88

It’s not a hard concept. CO2 absorbs UV radiation, but re-emission properties means it is inevitable that if you add more CO2 to the atmosphere, more heat will get trapped. The most extreme example of that would be Venus, whose dense and predominantly CO2 atmosphere traps far more solar radiation than Earth’s.

But as I said the Earth is not a closed system. It is a homeostatic one. It is also very dynamic. CO2 and global temperatures are not even correlated over the long periods of time even though vast amounts of CO2 are released by sea algae as water temperatures rise in the ocean. Sea algae account for possibly over 70% of CO2 emmissions. But my last post outlined the different significant factors involved in global temperature change (clouds, solar activity, cosmic radiation) CO2 is not even a major greenhouse gas. If you really want to reduce global temperatures start lobbying politicians to get rid of H2O. Send it out to space in rocket ships maybe.

In many cases the fossil fuel industry did come up with these ideas, via “think tanks” like the Heartland Institute, which are essentially fossil fuel-funded propaganda machines.

I think you underestimate how well funded green energy is. Also many of the same big oil giants are heavily invested in green energy. There are scientists whose funding is only given if they find evidence to support AGW. So who really has a dog in this fight is the question you need to be asking too? I think someone needs to inform the Holy Father soon about the other side to this story that he may not be hearing about.


#89

The ocean emits about 332 gigatons of CO2 annually. It also absorb 338 gigatons of CO2, making it a net sink of CO2 by about 6 gigatons - a very close balance. Vegetation and the land also emit CO2 and absorb CO2 in a nearly balanced fashion. So we have a natural near-balance before considering human activity. That amounts to about 29 gigatons annually. Add this to the aforementioned natural balance and you have a system that continually increases in CO2. So citing that sea algae account for a large fraction of the CO2 emissions without mentioning the natural balance of which that is a part is deceptive.

Again this statement ignores a pre-existing balance. H2O is the most significant greenhouse gas, but it is not increasing like CO2 is. So whatever heat trapping effect it has is staying fairly constant at a level that is nearly in equilibrium with the rate at which heat is leaving the earth through re-radiation.

Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas, but is found in much lower concentrations only 0.5% of the concentrations of CO2. So despite its potency, it is not as significant as CO2. Of course if things change and methane gets released in higher concentrations, it might overtake CO2 and become the leading GHG, but we have no indication yet that that is happening.

I would need to see some real data on funding to be convinced that the green energy industry is funded to a comparable level to the fossil fuel industry.


#90

No system is a closed system. In simple terms, the more CO2 you have in the lower atmosphere, the more difficult it is for that energy to escape. The energy will eventually escape, it’s just that it takes longer. I don’t think you actually understand thermodynamics. As to water, water vapor as a global percentage of atmospheric constituents is relatively constant, so no, water is not the cause of increased trapping of thermal radiation. There is no evidence that solar output variations, which are very minor in how much energy reaches the Earth, plays any great role.

I think you grossly overestimate it, and greatly underestimate the trillions of dollars that the fossil fuel industry represents. As to you claim that scientists only get funding if they investigate AGW, that’s like saying cosmologists only get money if they investigate Big Bang cosmology. Since AGW is completely non-controversial in the climatology community, it is as much a feature of climatology as Big Bang cosmology is a feature of cosmology, General Relativity and quantum mechanics is a common feature of physics.

Look, think of the atmosphere as a big tub. Let’s imagine you fill that tub half way with water. You have 2/3s" hose feeding the tub, and an equal size hose draining the tub. Providing the volume entering the tub is the same as the volume leaving the tub, you have the equivalent of thermodynamic equilibrium.

Now, let’s imagine you replace the drain hose with a 1/2" drain hose, and yet the hose feeding into the tub remains a 2/3"s inch hose. This is disequilibrium. So what will happen to the volume of water in the tub?


#91

It’s a science i urge you to spend some time studying.

The potential energy absorbed by CO2 is nominal and not of great concern. Warming directly from CO2 doubling is estimated around 1.1C, this is not disputed among skeptics or warmists.

The warming effect of CO2 is logarithmic, this is also not disputed.

Where the science remains contentious is in the feedbacks to CO2. In this area there is no consensus.


#92

Good job! I have a friend working on a project in science class trying to disprove climate change. I might show him this data!


#93

The warming from CO2, considering the mass of the atmosphere and what even a percentage or two increase in CO2 represents as far as extra trapped thermal radiation, is not nominal, and there is no serious debate among climatologists as to increase CO2 PPM in the atmosphere leading to measurable warming. The debate is largely a political one, there’s no real contention among climatologists.


#94

As I said, this is an area I urge you to study because your posts indicate your understanding is shallow.

The direct warming from CO2 doubling (ECS) is firmly estimated at ~1.1C with doubling.

There is no consensus on the additional impact of feedbacks (mostly water), with estimates ranging from below 1C to well over 6C in additional warming.

Only when we start to see consensus on the second area will we start to see a unified policy response to the threat.


#95

I have studied it, and there is general consensus that CO2 emissions are leading to measurable surface and ocean warming. You’re grossly overstating where the debate sits.


#96

The ocean emits about 332 gigatons of CO2 annually. It also absorb 338 gigatons of CO2, making it a net sink of CO2 by about 6 gigatons - a very close balance. Vegetation and the land also emit CO2 and absorb CO2 in a nearly balanced fashion. So we have a natural near-balance before considering human activity.

What empirical evidence do you have of this balance to suggest that climate has not been changing until humankind started burning fossil fuels? There is none. The idea of a balance ignores the mountain of evidence which suggests that the climate has been changing millions of years before we crawled out of the ocean and will be changing long after we are gone. To assume that human activity ignores the well accepted homeostatic behavior of the Earth in the way it manages water in both gaseous and liquid form over it’s surface to manage temperature. People who think that 332 gigiatons of CO2 sounds impressive have not seen that 0.024% contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere which at times in the Earth’s history have been over 20% CO2 may do well to learn more about the history about the last 5 interglacials in the present Holocene and how 3 out of those had higher maximum global temperatures than the highest global temperature in recorded history. This was discovered by analyzing the Vostock ice cores and data.

So whatever heat trapping effect it has is staying fairly constant at a level that is nearly in equilibrium with the rate at which heat is leaving the earth through re-radiation.

This is what I mean when I say the Earth is not a closed system. Also the only variable to temperature is not CO2. You are assuming to know the exact net effect of CO2 increase of 0.024% on global temperature when you are ignoring the interralation between warming, cloud formation (which both traps and reflects heat energy as well as the effect increased or decreased temperatures have on the oceans. Less than 2 years ago the IPCC (in their annual report) agreed that there was a hiatus of warming for over 16 years. The explanation given by AGW advocates was that the heat was being stored in the deep oceans where we could not detect or measure it…how convenient and simply magical right?

I would need to see some real data on funding to be convinced that the green energy industry is funded to a comparable level to the fossil fuel industry.

Green energy is a multi billion dollar initiative. Solyndra is an example of the utter waste (or transfer) of good money that happens when politics and science mix. There is no reason to compare which business makes more money. The only thing that matters is that there is incentive for AGW propaganda to continue siphoning billions while big oil still makes it’s money.


#97

I have studied it, and there is general consensus that CO2 emissions are leading to measurable surface and ocean warming.

Without even getting into the shear lunacy that political pawns have turned science into a political tool, the fact some of us are still holding to a long debunked idea (that 97% of scientists agree that anthopogenic global warming or climate change is real) is testimony to the weak foundation upon which this hypothesis is based at the moment:


#98

increase CO2 PPM in the atmosphere leading to measurable warming

Correlation is not equal to causation in science friend. There is no good evidence to suggest that man made CO2 has significantly increased global temperatures given our minscule contribution to the CO2 footprint. That is not to say that the Earth has seen lower temperatures with higher CO2 levels than the present (over 20% of the atmosphere). You are ignoring all the more powerful forcings such as solar activity, cosmic radiation, El Nino, La Nina, Jet Streams and the list goes on. The fact that the only evidence linking man made CO2 to temperature is in computer models (which have been consistently failing) and not actual data should tell you everything you need to know about why the proponents of this hypothesis have invested so much time and effort into the propaganda machine (such as Al Gore’s controversial inconvenient truth, politicians and other actors) as well as effort hiding the truth (as in Climate Gate and Climategate 2.0).


#99

The potential energy absorbed by CO2 is nominal and not of great concern. Warming directly from CO2 doubling is estimated around 1.1C, this is not disputed among skeptics or warmists.

The warming effect of CO2 is logarithmic, this is also not disputed.

Where the science remains contentious is in the feedbacks to CO2. In this area there is no consensus.

The estimate I have is 1.0 degrees but close enough I suppose since climate science is not settled by any means and unfortunately cannot be studied by separating independent variables and testing each in a vacuum to determine the actual effect that our relatively measly contribution is having on the climate.


#100

Yes, warming in the range of 1C is not catastrophic and mitigation is the right policy response. This level of warming is largely obscured by natural variation.

I wish both camps would acknowledge where they agree and focus their research efforts on developing the science supporting the feedbacks.


#101

As to water, water vapor as a global percentage of atmospheric constituents is relatively constant, so no, water is not the cause of increased trapping of thermal radiation.

Tell that to the people you get your info from. They disagree with you and defy the laws of thermodynamics in the process. Here are the apologists of the “faith” suggesting that we do in fact have measured hiatus in warming…who knew. But it is actually because heat energy is hiding out in the oceans…seriously!

Since AGW is completely non-controversial in the climatology community, it is as much a feature of climatology as Big Bang cosmology is a feature of cosmology, General Relativity and quantum mechanics is a common feature of physics.

This is a false equivalency. There is no consensus on AGW and even if there was consensus it mean nothing in science. Only evidence matters in science not opinions. AGW has no good evidence as yet so please stop the non sequiturs.


#102

If you can’t contest any specific points I’ve made, then your understanding of the issue is very shallow, you appear to be restating talking points you picked up somewhere.

Please, do some additional research before continuing to proclaim on this topic,

Here is a thoughtful article that you can review and contest the content.

What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled


#103

Interesting… listening…


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.