The Pope: "Climate change ... doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain."

[WaytoPeace + 62]

We all understand that what we consider to be scientific changes as more is learned. Consequently, it is prudent not to speak in absolutes, but rather on the basis of what the available evidence strongly suggests at any one time.  As of now, that evidence demonstrates a strong association between higher levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere with a warming planet, with rising sea levels, more wobbling of the jet stream, and increasing intensity of weather patterns including more severe droughts including higher risks of wildfires, more severe hurricanes and cyclones, and more severe flooding.  We see ever increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and while there has been some loss of carbon absorption such as in the Amazon, and some significant increase in the release of methane from cattle and other sources, the predominant contributor appears to be the burning of fossil fuels. The problem is that we may be approaching a tipping point, if the vast majority of climate scientists are correct, when the permafrost begins to melt and release huge quantities of methane, when so much of the ice sheet melts that the amount of sunlight reflected away is replaced by water that absorbs heat, and when portions of the earth become swamped or otherwise practically uninhabitable.  Now, when that tipping point will be reached if we do nothing is unclear, and how much difference a change in US government policy would make in the absence of a world wide concerted effort is unclear.  At worst, we might only be able to postpone the inevitable by a few years.  However, the question is whether it is right or moral to ignore the increasing body of evidence, do nothing, and count on the small covey of climate deniers to be right.  How would we explain that to our children and grandchildren if the catastrophe that is foretold occurs?  Isn’t the conservative approach to avoid the risk?  Why not do what we can to convert from coal fired power; to reduce our dependency on oil and gas; and to encourage clean energy sources, conservation, reforestation?  Why not seek to lead the world by example and by offering incentives to other countries who have the most difficult making those difficult adjustments?  If one doesn’t want to listen to Pope Francis, why not at least listen to ExxonMobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, Chevron and Eni who have all signed on to the same call for action?  

[wrs + 893]

14 minutes ago, WaytoPeace said:

We all understand that what we consider to be scientific changes as more is learned. Consequently, it is prudent not to speak in absolutes, but rather on the basis of what the available evidence strongly suggests at any one time.  As of now, that evidence demonstrates a strong association between higher levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere with a warming planet, with rising sea levels, more wobbling of the jet stream, and increasing intensity of weather patterns including more severe droughts including higher risks of wildfires, more severe hurricanes and cyclones, and more severe flooding.  We see ever increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and while there has been some loss of carbon absorption such as in the Amazon, and some significant increase in the release of methane from cattle and other sources, the predominant contributor appears to be the burning of fossil fuels. The problem is that we may be approaching a tipping point, if the vast majority of climate scientists are correct, when the permafrost begins to melt and release huge quantities of methane, when so much of the ice sheet melts that the amount of sunlight reflected away is replaced by water that absorbs heat, and when portions of the earth become swamped or otherwise practically uninhabitable.  Now, when that tipping point will be reached if we do nothing is unclear, and how much difference a change in US government policy would make in the absence of a world wide concerted effort is unclear.  At worst, we might only be able to postpone the inevitable by a few years.  However, the question is whether it is right or moral to ignore the increasing body of evidence, do nothing, and count on the small covey of climate deniers to be right.  How would we explain that to our children and grandchildren if the catastrophe that is foretold occurs?  Isn’t the conservative approach to avoid the risk?  Why not do what we can to convert from coal fired power; to reduce our dependency on oil and gas; and to encourage clean energy sources, conservation, reforestation?  Why not seek to lead the world by example and by offering incentives to other countries who have the most difficult making those difficult adjustments?  If one doesn’t want to listen to Pope Francis, why not at least listen to ExxonMobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Total, Chevron and Eni who have all signed on to the same call for action?  

This is a nice word salad of unsubstantiated nonsense.  The body of evidence is inconclusive or contradictory of the AGW hypothesis.  Try using paragraphs when you write.

Edited June 18, 2019 by wrs

[specinho + 440]

On 6/16/2019 at 5:50 AM, Red said:

Quote

SP

When Science can not explain the event (or in our case to stop the dispute)........ Gods and religions come into play............ " 

Except that the event is explained through a theory (see Okie's earlier post).

On 6/16/2019 at 11:15 AM, Jan van Eck said:

Actually, Keith, it probably does not.  And the reason is that there is not enough of the stuff in the atmosphere......

The concentration of CO2 is about that of argon gas.  

This chart does not intend to support or deny climate change but to mention the possible ways how we get disagreeable results in scientific research........ 

1. The concentration of Carbon dioxide in the air differs with

a) distance of measurement  from the source of emission

b) altitude of measurement from the source of emission

c) types of emitting sources considered

d) etc

2. Commonly available charts regarding the increasing flux of CO2 is probably a hypothesis from 3 to 5 ice cores dug out from the Artic......

3. We are probably refering to Nitrogen which consists of ~70% of gas composition in the atmosphere?? Argon and other gases - less than 0.01%.

 

On 6/16/2019 at 1:00 PM, Red said:

Probably because, unlike you, he gets the science behind climate change.

Right......... Guess what is more convincing is we might have to turn him the second Mendel.......... (Mendel worked in the back yard of the church to count heights of plants and colors of beans and established the law of inheritance). In this case.......... to count CO2 particles or concentration and to record temperatures to establish trustable facts of CO2 level and climate change......... or no?

Edited June 18, 2019 by specinho

[wrs + 893]

Here is an analysis that is based on recent data and which suggests that temperature drives CO2 levels and that temperature is a function of planetary alignment with the moon and sun.  This makes far more sense than AGW.

https://dockery208841154.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/co2_vs_temp_2018_paper_2.pdf

[Red + 252]

1 hour ago, wrs said:

This is a nice word salad of unsubstantiated nonsense.  The body of evidence is inconclusive or contradictory of the AGW hypothesis.  Try using paragraphs when you write.

Again, it's a theory.  You really have no idea about science and should get a better education.

 

1 hour ago, wrs said:

Here is an analysis that is based on recent data and which suggests that temperature drives CO2 levels and that temperature is a function of planetary alignment with the moon and sun.  This makes far more sense than AGW.

LOL - see my comment above.  At least I know what incompetent looks like.

[WHY + 12]

Woof guys that is one long series of posts to read through. I feel proud that I did it!

Since no one has moved even one iota from their original positions, I can agree with those who see no point to the continued posts. But… we live in interesting times – so I can’t help commenting but in a rather confused big picture way.

At first, climate change caused by man-made pollution seems simple. Take a bunch of CO2 that was fixed and release it into the atmosphere – ought to do something, right? But then suddenly it’s this huge existential deal threatening the entire biology of the planet. Like as big as the impact cataclysm that ended the dinosaurs! And here we are both the cause and custodians of the problem!! Wow, I feel overwhelmed already!!!

But how big is this problem? Is it really world ending? Are we really going to drown in our own pollutants like bacteria in a petri dish? And when we talk about our survival, what is it indeed that we are trying to preserve? Right now the worry is climate change but just wait… the 21^st century water wars are still ahead of us and don’t get me started on the rise of AI and genome manipulation.

You know, I grew up in the cold war era. It was funny that, even as a child, I recognized the stupidity of hiding under my desk in the event of nuclear annihilation. Whenever I perceive that same thinking, I respond in the same way – deep, deep skepticism. I deeply mistrust one-sided thinking. I deeply disagree with those who present part of something as if it were the whole. I deeply resent those who spread fear as the only way to motivate us to change our behavior. As each side desperately grasps for more “facts” to bolster their argument with no resolution, neither side moves towards the middle. In the meantime, scientists and engineers transform and terraform the planet according to the blueprint of accepted regional societal norms. Divide and conquer!

Climate change acceptors (that’s you Red) - you need to separate your fears from your arguments and admit that we don’t know everything and that models are not always predictors of the future. See the Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894.

The rest of us – let’s at least agree that pollution ain’t good for none of us and we can do better and still achieve sustainable economic results.

What we need is the right mix of responsible development of our energy resources to meet the rising demand from the billions wanting our standard of living. This takes holistic interdisciplinary thinking and working together to achieve. I hope that that is what the oil companies and maybe even the Pope want. In the meantime as the argument continues…. we may just look up one day to find a large asteroid coming right at us. Oops!

[wrs + 893]

35 minutes ago, Red said:

Again, it's a theory.  You really have no idea about science and should get a better education.

 

LOL - see my comment above.  At least I know what incompetent looks like.

LOL, my degrees are BA CS, BS EE and MS Eng from University of Texas at Austin and I was a registered professional engineer in Texas for 30 years. 

Incompetent are the people that put together the silly studies claiming that the temperature of the earth is increasing and that humans caused it.  I seriously doubt you even understand the paper I linked nor do you likely understand the difference in time domain and frequency domain analysis.

Edited June 18, 2019 by wrs

[Red + 252]

32 minutes ago, WHY said:

Climate change acceptors (that’s you Red) - you need to separate your fears from your arguments and admit that we don’t know everything and that models are not always predictors of the future.

I present the arguments. You are just guessing.

4 minutes ago, wrs said:

LOL, my degrees are BA CS, BS EE and MS Eng from University of Texas at Austin and I was a registered professional engineer in Texas for 30 years.

And with all that you still linked to a paper which was complete mumbo jumbo.  Comment in the areas where you are competent. and you might look smarter.

[wrs + 893]

13 minutes ago, Red said:

I present the arguments. You are just guessing.

And with all that you still linked to a paper which was complete mumbo jumbo.  Comment in the areas where you are competent. and you might look smarter.

Why don't you comment on the paper and the analysis then?  I don't think you have the first clue about what it's says nor do you understand the mathematics involved (ergo you call it mumbo jumbo).  OTOH, I did the exact same kind of spectral analysis for years so it's completely in my area of competence.  The data in Figure 4 clearly show that the two data sets have periodic components which would on it's own contradict any AGW component in the CO2 levels. 

I dare you to rebut the paper point by point on a technical basis.  If you can't, I have nothing to say other than you are grossly ignorant of the math needed to understand the arguments advanced by the climate religionists and thus easily misled and confused.

Edited June 18, 2019 by wrs

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

7 minutes ago, wrs said:

I dare you to rebut the paper point by point on a technical basis.  If you can't, I have nothing to say other than you are grossly ignorant of the math needed to understand the arguments advanced by the climate religionists and thus easily misled and confused

and if he can?

[wrs + 893]

2 minutes ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

and if he can?

I will listen to his counter arguments but the obvious periodicity in the data kills any argument about AGW for sure.  Maybe he can start by addressing that.  Can you rebut the paper or understand it?

[Red + 252]

15 minutes ago, wrs said:

I will listen to his counter arguments but the obvious periodicity in the data kills any argument about AGW for sure.  Maybe he can start by addressing that.  Can you rebut the paper or understand it?

Global temperature increases over the past 100+ years correlate positively with global CO2 levels.   

Your linked paper was yet another a cluster pluck from predacious denialists. 

[wrs + 893]

5 minutes ago, Red said:

Global temperature increases over the past 100+ years correlate positively with global CO2 levels.   

Your linked paper was yet another a cluster pluck from predacious denialists. 

Sorry, that graph isn't a rebuttal of the paper or the analysis. Stick to the challenge or get lost. Either you can or cannot rebut the paper on a point by point technical basis.  Thus far you have failed to show you can and the graph here is a dead nuts certainty you can't because it's a deflection.

Edited June 18, 2019 by wrs

[Red + 252]

7 minutes ago, wrs said:

Sorry, that graph isn't a rebuttal of the paper or the analysis. Stick to the challenge or get lost. Either you can or cannot rebut the paper on a point by point technical basis.  Thus far you have failed to show you can and the graph here is a dead nuts certainty you can't because it's a deflection.

Your link selectively used non-global data over a short period because it did not correlate with surface temperature data.  The charts were meaningless.  Pick a specific item you want commented on because it was a total nonsense and I have shown in my chart what the story looks like over the longer term. 

That aside, the paper neglected that the global warming trend is obvious, and presented nothing to explain it.

[wrs + 893]

32 minutes ago, Red said:

Your link selectively used non-global data over a short period because it did not correlate with surface temperature data.  The charts were meaningless.  Pick a specific item you want commented on because it was a total nonsense and I have shown in my chart what the story looks like over the longer term. 

That aside, the paper neglected that the global warming trend is obvious, and presented nothing to explain it.

Non global data is what we all experience on a daily basis.  Global data is nothing more than a hodge-podge average with little meaning for anyone.  This was a reasonable analysis of a specific location that demonstrates no AGW effect and does indicate a possible connection to specific known synodic cycles. 

The weakness of the analysis is that the time series are not the same length, the sample grid was unevenly spaced because months are different lengths and finally, a good FFT should have at least 1024 points and this was more than half short.  So what that means for the charts is that the placement of the frequency bins is not very accurate i.e. could be in error by a couple of months and the amplitudes are probably smeared in the frequency domain.

The important feature of a theory is that it should apply always and everywhere but the first set of data shows that it does not.  The CO2 levels are  increasing but the temperature are cyclical with a slight increasing bias.  There is no correlation between the two.  That contradicts the AGW theory which should hold true everywhere, all the time.

Edited June 18, 2019 by wrs

[James Regan + 1,776]

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example:

During the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.

The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm — about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today — 4400 ppm.

According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

[WaytoPeace + 62]

Thanks WRS for the suggestion for more paragraphs.  Good point.  But, how do you refute the point that despite spending millions of dollars to support research and studies hoping to challenge the prevailing scientific view that the increase in greenhouse gases is the major contributor to global warming and climate change, few results of those financed studies have ever been published and now almost all the majors are endorsing the Pope’s call for a tax on carbon emissions?  After all, wouldn’t they have the most to gain to try to deny that view?  

[Red + 252]

5 minutes ago, wrs said:

Non global data is what we all experience on a daily basis. 

That is like saying the planet is not warming because it's always cold where I live.  It is not science.

7 minutes ago, wrs said:

The important fact about a theory is that it should apply always and everywhere but the first set of data shows that it does not.

It applies at the GLOBAL level because its AGW theory.  Moreover, Figure 1 in your link actually proved the opposite of what you claim because  the "noise" in the satellite data obscured  the trend. 

[NickW + 2,714]

25 minutes ago, James Regan said:

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example:

During the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.

The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm — about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today — 4400 ppm.

According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

 

A significant factor is that the sun was somewhat fainter back then. I believe the output of the sun increases by about 30% every billion years. For the purposes of our geological time the suns output is fixed but start winding the clock back 100's of millions of years and there was simply less solar radiation to heat the planet which would explain the observation quoted above. 

Sorry to spoil a good old kon-spiracy lead

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,132]

1 hour ago, wrs said:

Sorry, that graph isn't a rebuttal of the paper or the analysis. Stick to the challenge or get lost. Either you can or cannot rebut the paper on a point by point technical basis.  Thus far you have failed to show you can and the graph here is a dead nuts certainty you can't because it's a deflection.

WRS: Alarmist refuse to take biased city data out. They do not even try even though majority of stations are in cities. We know biased city data is good for around 2C and upwards of 4C depending on the size of the city.  Even in tiny cities too close for USCRN where they have 2 stations trying to measure bias they achieve 0.5C.   Then you must get him to admit his so called "data" is nothing but proxy data as NO ONE had temperature readings over any area of the earth before 1940 except: USA, Germany, Eastern Australia all of whom were FAR hotter in the 1930's than today if you just search by individual stations. 

What is really hilarious is they now claim UAH data shows warming since 2000.... Because the biased trash changed their temperatures to NOT use the median but rather the upper boundary of the error band!   And whenever the trash release the next GISS temperature record, the older temperatures will be depressed once more to make modern times "hotter"... unless you are a genius like RED who claims it is the opposite...

[James Regan + 1,776]

6 minutes ago, NickW said:

A significant factor is that the sun was somewhat fainter back then. I believe the output of the sun increases by about 30% every billion years. For the purposes of our geological time the suns output is fixed but start winding the clock back 100's of millions of years and there was simply less solar radiation to heat the planet which would explain the observation quoted above. 

Sorry to spoil a good old kon-spiracy lead

Dammit Nick I hate it when you do that.

Theres so much of this info out there for both arguments it’s almost like a conspiracy theory based on economics!

Edited June 18, 2019 by James Regan

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, James Regan said:

Dammit Nick I hate it when you do that.

Theres so much of this info out there for both arguments it’s almost like a conspiracy theory based on economics!

There are a whole range of other factors at play. Ocean circulation is another key driver which of course is influenced by plate tectonics

[James Regan + 1,776]

3 minutes ago, NickW said:

There are a whole range of other factors at play. Ocean circulation is another key driver which of course is influenced by plate tectonics

And let’s throw in Core Angular Momentum the list goes on

[Red + 252]

11 minutes ago, Wastral said:

What is really hilarious is they now claim UAH data shows warming since 2000.... Because the biased trash changed their temperatures to NOT use the median but rather the upper boundary of the error band!  

UAH and RSS use exactly the same source data.  They get slightly different results.

UAH continues to neglect problems with their output and only begrudgingly makes good after they get laughed at by industry peers.  Satellite source data is the most manipulated of all temperature data, yet is assumed by so many to be a gold standard. 

Yet again, another post that offers nothing new, and carries on the well worn tradition of science denial.

 

[Red + 252]

16 minutes ago, James Regan said:

Theres so much of this info out there for both arguments it’s almost like a conspiracy theory based on economics!

I hate linking to Youtube as a rule, but occasionally it's easier than me explaining predacious denial.