What do you think of climate change?

…given sufficient amounts of a “green house gas” produced by a chemical reaction


NOTE total worldwide oil consumption is in the 90+ million barrels per day (bbl/day) on average,… AND there are 42 gals in a barrel (so there is lots of CO2 produced daily)

the climate can change simply because of a fundamental structural property of CO2 which allows visible light through,… BUT the ability to vibrate on a molecular scale causes CO2 to trap infrared radiation

(see 6th question,… why do we have a very real problem?)

on page 11 of the PDF

I’ve curated a list of YouTube videos which present basic information about CO2

as far as why europe is experiencing a heatwave,… its actually no big mystery if one understands the big picture

if one considers “error chain analysis” (which is how the NTSB determines the cause of an aircraft accidents for example)


we can also use an “error chain” approach to explain a heatwave!

basically since elevated CO2 levels increase infrared radiation,… this causes elevated surface temperatures,… and symptoms include melting polar ice

when polar ice melts, this changes the jet stream,… when the jet stream changes, we have an increased likelihood of a heat wave in regions like france which made headline news

QED “CC caused by CO2” and “pop-psychology”

1 Like

Everyone knows how CO2 is produced. Everyone knows that CO2 is a (trace) greenhouse gas (.04%). Everyone knows that greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere. What no one knows, however, is the effect adding more CO2 to the atmosphere has in terms of feedback and forcing. That is, the climate sensitivity is unknown, and suggesting that because some things are known we know everything important is nonsense.

Here’s a big picture, maybe this will help. What it shows is a heat wave over western Europe at the same time as a cold wave over eastern Europe. The maximum temperature difference between those two regions was 58 deg F. To put that in perspective, the NOAA average temperature discrepancy for June was +0.5 deg F. Does your global explanation for the heat wave explain why France was hot and Belarus was cold?


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

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,… so we’ll have obvious symptoms like polar ice melting,… which then effects the jet-stream,… which then effects local weather patterns (as reported)

BTW if you are asking was the specific heat wave that just happened in france predictable along w/ cool weather in russia,… the answer is NO!

from a physics stand point, weather involves turbulence and diffusion,… so its impossible to model w/ math, because it would require knowing all the initial conditions of everything w/ in the system

actually a math forecast is an “average” of what happens in real life,… as they say “seeing is believing” (simple demo examples)

Diffusion - experiment(s) with dye in “cold” and “warm” water


as a pilot flying from point “a” to point “b” I trust weather forecasts by a meteorologist, because for the “flight time - time window” there exist pretty accurate models,… but because events in the real world include chaos (i.e. random events),… I do not trust long term weather forecasts which can change dramatically from one week to another

climate on the other hand, looks at the big picture, over long time spans, and is pretty simple by comparison,…. so the hot weather in paris isn’t all that surprising due to the fact that CO2 produced by mankind over the years eventually melted ice in the polar regions,… which changed the jet stream,… which in turn “creates turbulence w/ local weather patterns”

NOTE in the YouTube video about “Diffusion,…” you’ll see the dye (in the warm water) over the course of the demonstration becomes evenly distributed,… the analogy w/ CC being, the global average temperature will increase over time due to CO2 trapping IR

over the years I’ve really had to laugh when people who question how come scientists are certain the climate of the Earth is going to “heat up” while they point out meteorologists can’t predict a severe weather storm two weeks out

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

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

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.

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.


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”)

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


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

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.


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.


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?

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.


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?

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.

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

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

Dr. Theodore Sheppard
the Grantham professor of climate science at the University of Reading (a leading center of atmospheric science in the UK)

Dr. John Walsh
the president’s professor of global climate change in
the International Arctic research center at the university of Alaska


…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


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

1 Like

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

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.

1 Like

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.