Pope on Climate Change

[ok doser]

Geez you guys, it's right there in the first part of the page...

"When CO2 levels were higher in the past, solar levels were also lower".

Then later in the more detailed text, it walks through the data that supports this conclusion. I get the impression that none of you actually bothered to read the material?

"the more detailed text"

you mean the other people who called him on his assertion and the weak response he gave?


go ahead Jose, cut and paste the best explanation for the claim that "solar output was about 4% less than current levels"


you too alate one

 

[rexlunae]

No, I reject the notion that the climate simulations based on CO₂ levels are accurate, since the climate simulations are known to be NP-complete problems (impossible to solve with computers in a reasonable time).

Which ones? There certainly are climate models that aren't.
http://www.climateprediction.net/
http://edgcm.columbia.edu/
http://www2.cesm.ucar.edu/

When you combine the known inability of computers to model the atmosphere

[citation needed]

... with the known alteration of the data (hide the decline) that does not fit a pet theory,

Ah, yes. That time stolen emails were used to run a cynical smear campaign against scientists.

... then it is not hard to come to the conclusion that there is something rotten about the whole "global warming/climate change" propaganda.

Sure, if you're willing to buy into conspiracy theories and junk science.

Either the government can or the government can't.

Other than making it rain under conditions that it normally wouldn't at great expense and in very limited areas, there's not a lot the government could do to impact the weather.

What is known is that the government has been carrying out research into turning climate change into a weapon.

Any of it successful?

So, the first place to look when the climate starts changing is towards those people that are actually trying to change the climate.

People. People are changing the climate, although they aren't trying to.

Part of the problem is that you're conflating weather and climate. Changing the weather intentionally is relatively easy compared to changing the climate. You need to do something that actually lasts a fairly long time, and there are relatively few options for that. One of them, however, is changing atmospheric chemistry on a massive scale, such as by adding a lot of a gas that would normally only be present as a trace.

Here is a more recent article, if you are interested:
Global Weather Weaponry And Military Atmospheric Geoengineering: Global Climate Change Artificially Manufactured

So, conspiracy theorists have turned a failed project to prevent damaging storms into a sinister weather-weapon project. Project Stormfury attempted to influence the behavior of hurricanes, mostly with an eye toward preventing damage and destruction. But what they don't mention, because it spoils the narrative, is that the project failed. They spent millions of dollars and never managed to accomplish anything definitive.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that billions of people emitting carbon dioxide that has been trapped in the planet's crust for millions of years might change the environment, but at the same time so easy for you to believe that the government is changing the environment intentionally by secret means, and by an unknown mechanism?

 

[rocketman]

Not sure if that's an honest statement or sarcasm.

From the Washington Post.

A bit of both I suppose....

 

[Alate_One]

Almost certainly. The good thing is, the satellite data is very good, and when it has been up and running for a few years we will see it showing no significant upward trend to CO₂ levels. :up:

Um do you mean the CO2 satellite, Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, or OCO-2, that only started producing data last year? :doh:

The numbers certainly seem to agree with those from Mauna Loa.

 

[Jonahdog]

Almost certainly. The good thing is, the satellite data is very good, and when it has been up and running for a few years we will see it showing no significant upward trend to CO₂ levels. :up:

And when the data shows Stripe to be wrong he will come up with another reason not to accept science.

 

[Quetzal]

And when the data shows Stripe to be wrong he will come up with another reason not to accept science.

Pretty much. The creativity that these people come up with to deny the evidence sitting right in front of them is incredible.

 

[oatmeal]

Most of you know my position on this, so I will spare you. But I am curious as to what you think about the Pope's take on the issue:

Climate change has been a fact since Genesis 1:1

I. What caused the ice ages?

1. Global cooling?

2. What caused the global cooling?



II. What was the caused the ice ages to end?

1. Global warming?

2. What caused the global warming that ended the ice ages?

a. SUV's

b. the natural cooling and warming cycles of the sun?

c... some other cyclical physical changes?

Global climate change has been around since the earth has been around.

What caused all the changes before the Industrial Revolution?

Did all nature's laws cease to function once we started burning coal and petroleum, naturally found resources that God put here for our use?

Man made global climate change hoaxsters and chicken little (the sky is falling fame) came out of the same mold

 

[oatmeal]

Climate change has been a fact since Genesis 1:1

I. What caused the ice ages?

1. Global cooling?

2. What caused the global cooling?



II. What was the caused the ice ages to end?

1. Global warming?

2. What caused the global warming that ended the ice ages?

a. SUV's

b. the natural cooling and warming cycles of the sun?

c... some other cyclical physical changes?

Global climate change has been around since the earth has been around.

What caused all the changes before the Industrial Revolution?

Did all nature's laws cease to function once we started burning coal and petroleum, naturally found resources that God put here for our use?

Man made global climate change hoaxsters and chicken little (the sky is falling fame) came out of the same mold

I might add CO2 is one of the nutrients necessary for plant growth, plants use the CO2 and one of the by products is O2, which we need.

Hence God already has thought of that and planned ahead.

More CO2 means greater plant growth which means more CO2 being converted to carbon and oxygen.

The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof. He knows what He doing.

 

[Jonahdog]

I might add CO2 is one of the nutrients necessary for plant growth, plants use the CO2 and one of the by products is O2, which we need.

Hence God already has thought of that and planned ahead.

More CO2 means greater plant growth which means more CO2 being converted to carbon and oxygen.

The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof. He knows what He doing.

So why is the CO2 level in the atmosphere increasing? Plants not doing their job? Maybe there is a union for plants and that is why the free market CO2 system is not working as your god designed it.

 

[Alate_One]

I might add CO2 is one of the nutrients necessary for plant growth, plants use the CO2 and one of the by products is O2, which we need.

Hence God already has thought of that and planned ahead.

More CO2 means greater plant growth which means more CO2 being converted to carbon and oxygen.

The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof. He knows what He doing.

Can I reiterate THERE IS SUCH A THING AS TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING!

Dead zones in the gulf of mexico and Chesapeake bay are due to excess nutrients.

CO2 does improve plant growth, but it also increases the temperature of the earth (especially at night) which increases the rate of plant respiration which produces CO2. This is one of the main reasons plants have been unable to capture all of the carbon increase in the atmosphere.

Increasing night time tempearatures.

Spoiler

 

[rexlunae]

I might add CO2 is one of the nutrients necessary for plant growth, plants use the CO2 and one of the by products is O2, which we need.

Most of the CO2 that we've added to the atmosphere, we created by burning some sort of stored carbon and consuming one of those O2 molecules that you are so strangely concerned about. It's a cycle, one which kept CO2 levels very low until we figured out how to access the energy of massive amounts of stored carbon.

Hence God already has thought of that and planned ahead.

Given the consequences directly tied to higher concentrations of CO2 that we've created, not planned very well.

More CO2 means greater plant growth which means more CO2 being converted to carbon and oxygen.

On the same token, the harder you breath, the more you grow. Right? More material take in == greater growth.

Are you sure plants can actually use all that extra CO2 to grow? Or might there be some other factors that you're refusing to consider?

The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof. He knows what He doing.

Do we?

 

[Delmar]

Thing is the Pope is actually following scripture as far as his attitudes on the poor.

As far as climate goes apparently most of you think burning ten billion tons of coal per year won't have any effect on the earth. (That's on top of other fossil fuels)

Do you deniers also deny CO2 levels are increasing?

I deny that CO2 is a pollutant as well as the idea that CO2 levels have never been this high before.

 

[oatmeal]

So why is the CO2 level in the atmosphere increasing? Plants not doing their job? Maybe there is a union for plants and that is why the free market CO2 system is not working as your god designed it.

Increasing from what levels? CO2 is not scientifically regarded as a reason for increasing temperatures. However the amount of water vapor is. As well as sun cycles. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is insignificant compared to the amount of H2O.

Oh, and if you wish to take this subject seriously, you might want to answer the questions in my post 107 where the root of the matter is brought up.

What caused the end of the ice ages? What was the cause of the global warming that ended the ice ages?

SUV's?

 

[oatmeal]

Can I reiterate THERE IS SUCH A THING AS TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING!

Dead zones in the gulf of mexico and Chesapeake bay are due to excess nutrients.

CO2 does improve plant growth, but it also increases the temperature of the earth (especially at night) which increases the rate of plant respiration which produces CO2. This is one of the main reasons plants have been unable to capture all of the carbon increase in the atmosphere.

Increasing night time tempearatures.

Spoiler

Let's get to the nuts and bolts.

What are your answers to the questions in my post 107?

 

[oatmeal]

Most of the CO2 that we've added to the atmosphere, we created by burning some sort of stored carbon and consuming one of those O2 molecules that you are so strangely concerned about. It's a cycle, one which kept CO2 levels very low until we figured out how to access the energy of massive amounts of stored carbon.



Given the consequences directly tied to higher concentrations of CO2 that we've created, not planned very well.



On the same token, the harder you breath, the more you grow. Right? More material take in == greater growth.

Are you sure plants can actually use all that extra CO2 to grow? Or might there be some other factors that you're refusing to consider?



Do we?

Until you have answers to the questions posted in my post 107, we have no basis to proceed

 

[Selaphiel]

I deny that CO2 is a pollutant as well as the idea that CO2 levels have never been this high before.

Whether something is a pollutant or not is really a question about concentrations, not just the nature of the substance.

They may have been this high before. But in a period without any human infrastructure like we have today. The droughts and floods that was back then would have been devastating to us today, and they probably were in many areas back then as well.
Secondly, that they have been high before and are high now does not necessarily mean that the cause of the high concentration today is the same as it was back then.

 

[ok doser]

Whether something is a pollutant or not is really a question about concentrations, not just the nature of the substance.

the solution to pollution is dilution

 

[Alate_One]

Let's get to the nuts and bolts.

What are your answers to the questions in my post 107?

Milankovich cycles combined with positive feedback loops and changes in solar output.

CO2 concentration does vary along with climate even in the past, lower when cold, higher when hot.

So toss in human produced CO2 into these natural changes and we can produce dangerous warming partly because our impact has a larger effect because of feedback loops.

 

[Alate_One]

I deny that CO2 is a pollutant as well as the idea that CO2 levels have never been this high before.

No records from gas bubbles in ice cores which go back about 800,000 years are as high as today.

Other measurements of higher CO2 concentrations in the very distant past are estimates based on isotopes and number of pores on plant leaves.

 

[Alate_One]

the solution to pollution is dilution

Mhmm. How exactly are you going to dilute rising CO2 levels across the whole planet?