Pope Francis: Global Warming is Primarily Man Made

[Bob the Citronaut]

Data is drawn from the past 10,000 years, the direct measurements of global average temperature over the past 50 years is a a tiny fraction of the data drawn upon.

If science relied on absolutely direct measuments and disallowed logical inference, we'd still be lighting our homes with kerosene (like they do in Africa because the continent is a cesspool of corruption and lies from the powerful, know what I'm sayin?)

Show me, I'm not reading an entire book to find the one data point you're talking about. The executive summary says they use data from the last 50 years.

Even 10,000 years is not enough time. Need to go millions.

Your are trying to use 2 hours of a person life to summarize their entire life.

 

[UCFEE]

Thank you for epitomizing what's wrong with climate deniers. They won't take 30 minutes to read a scientific paper (since they likely don't have a basic scientific literacy), yet they'll form extremely strong opinions and parrot back every bit of bullshit TV guy spews.

 

[sk8knight]

Data is drawn from the past 10,000 years, the direct measurements of global average temperature over the past 50 years is a a tiny fraction of the data drawn upon.

If science relied on absolutely direct measuments and disallowed logical inference, we'd still be lighting our homes with kerosene (like they do in Africa because the continent is a cesspool of corruption and lies from the powerful, know what I'm sayin?)

Except that the ice core CO2 models have a huge margin of error. Up until recently, that was 1000 years or more, but now they've refined it to as little as 200 years. So that margin of error gets correlated into the temperature readings and then you have to add all the other margins of error and what you have is a bunch of assumptions so that you can come up with a clear opinion. CO2 has normally trailed temperature. Now that humans are producing CO2 it is leading. What does that mean? Also, why do the temperature models not seem to include the ecological responses the planet has typically had to increasing CO2. Is it because we don't know enough and that is hard to model? In real life, the temperature has failed to react in the way that many of the models predicted. Why is that?

Nobody thinks that humans are not adversely affecting the planet or that we should not strive to be better stewards. We've taken some very good steps in emissions regulations for vehicles and industry and even many people in their daily lives. The issue that we have is that the US Government (and the UN which doesn't have the US's best interests at heart) is all in on creating huge bureaucracies based upon "settled science." Debate has been stifled and scientists that have findings that challenge even the severity of the impact (much less refute any of the conclusions) have had their funding pulled and have been driven from their field. This is not an open playing field. Until the scientific community can debate both sides of the issue without demagoguery, then we should all be skeptical about policy based upon the "consensus."

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

You'd make a great lawyer.

Judge: "Show me the proof."
You: "No, find it yourself. You're stupid for not being able to find it."

 

[FearTheKnight]

Show me, I'm not reading an entire book to find the one data point you're talking about. The executive summary says they use data from the last 50 years.

Even 10,000 years is not enough time. Need to go millions.

Your are trying to use 2 hours of a person life to summarize their entire life.

Just so you know Bob, the graph you posted shows that global temperatures and CO2 levels directly correlate over the past 800,000 years. We're also putting out unprecedented amounts of CO2 since the industrial revolution and we're not really slowing down. If you can do that math, you can see why science is concerned.

 

[UCFEE]

Sk8, that's a well reasoned point, but two things: first the increases in global average temperature measured between 1990 and 2007 fall smack dab in the middle of the climate models prediction (.2 degrees C actual versus a .1 - .3 degree prediction). Secondly, with each iteration of this study, the margins of error are decreasing, so much so that we've gone from moderate confidence about human's impact to very high confidence (95%) of humans impact over the years.

If you're worried about the policy decisions that may be made once there's widespread acceptance of these conclusions, that's another debate worth having... but that doesn't preclude having leaders that at least acknowledge the near certainty of the situation.

 

[FearTheKnight]

Except that the ice core CO2 models have a huge margin of error. Up until recently, that was 1000 years or more, but now they've refined it to as little as 200 years. So that margin of error gets correlated into the temperature readings and then you have to add all the other margins of error and what you have is a bunch of assumptions so that you can come up with a clear opinion. CO2 has normally trailed temperature. Now that humans are producing CO2 it is leading. What does that mean? Also, why do the temperature models not seem to include the ecological responses the planet has typically had to increasing CO2. Is it because we don't know enough and that is hard to model? In real life, the temperature has failed to react in the way that many of the models predicted. Why is that?

Nobody thinks that humans are not adversely affecting the planet or that we should not strive to be better stewards. We've taken some very good steps in emissions regulations for vehicles and industry and even many people in their daily lives. The issue that we have is that the US Government (and the UN which doesn't have the US's best interests at heart) is all in on creating huge bureaucracies based upon "settled science." Debate has been stifled and scientists that have findings that challenge even the severity of the impact (much less refute any of the conclusions) have had their funding pulled and have been driven from their field. This is not an open playing field. Until the scientific community can debate both sides of the issue without demagoguery, then we should all be skeptical about policy based upon the "consensus."

CO2 hasn't trailed temperature, our ability to detect it has.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060.abstract

 

[UCFEE]

You'd make a great lawyer.

Judge: "Show me the proof."
You: "No, find it yourself. You're stupid for not being able to find it."

Seems more like.

Judge: Show me your proof.
Lawyer: Ok, here you go.
Judge: Hmmmm, I failed Legal Studies 101 so I don't understand this... so your client is guilty, dismissed.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Just so you know Bob, the graph you posted shows that global temperatures and CO2 levels directly correlate over the past 800,000 years. We're also putting out unprecedented amounts of CO2 since the industrial revolution and we're not really slowing down. If you can do that math, you can see why science is concerned.

I am well aware of the meaning of what I post. I guess all those other industrial revolutions 100, 200, 300 and 400,000 years ago really had scientists worried too.

 

[jetsaholic]

I just want to know if this is Windows x86 .net based or not.

 

[sk8knight]

CO2 hasn't trailed temperature, our ability to detect it has.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6123/1060.abstract

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, and if so please correct me. The results they posted at four points where there were sharp changes in temperature are interesting. In the first, CO2 lead by 10 years with a 160 year margin of error. The second, temperature lead by 260 years with a 130 year margin of error. The third, CO2 lead by 60 years with a 120 year margin of error. And in the fourth, temperature lead by 500 years with a 90 year margin of error. Looking at the data, temperature lead regardless of the margin of error and CO2 lead only within the margin of error. A case can be made given that data that if the errors all went towards CO2 lag, the data supported that. Now they conditioned that by using another model for gas diffusion within the ice over time to state that while the CO2 still lagged, it was less than the actual measurements showed and so the authors chose to state that they were synchronous within uncertainties. Fine with all of that I guess, but it's not as black and white as people want to make it. That's my point.

 

[FearTheKnight]

I am well aware of the meaning of what I post. I guess all those other industrial revolutions 100, 200, 300 and 400,000 years ago really had scientists worried too.

Put the natural peak on top of another higher one. That's what "math" means.

 

[sk8knight]

Sk8, that's a well reasoned point, but two things: first the increases in global average temperature measured between 1990 and 2007 fall smack dab in the middle of the climate models prediction (.2 degrees C actual versus a .1 - .3 degree prediction). Secondly, with each iteration of this study, the margins of error are decreasing, so much so that we've gone from moderate confidence about human's impact to very high confidence (95%) of humans impact over the years. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2006.00211.x/full

If you're worried about the policy decisions that may be made once there's widespread acceptance of these conclusions, that's another debate worth having... but that doesn't preclude having leaders that at least acknowledge the near certainty of the situation.

Please read this about the reliability of climate models. It'll tell you about why your number there isn't reality. Also mildly supports your general conclusion but with much more care and caution than your religious fervor.

You also can't say that climate change is 7.2 billion times worse than heart disease to humans and something needs to be done and then later claim to not be discussing policy changes affected by the accuracy or not of climate models.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

It's kind of odd to me: the same people who ignore or think scientific data is fudged/disingenuous will regale you in stories about talking snakes, giants, people who lived for 1,000 years, and how Adam and Eve played fetch with T-Rex in the Garden of Eden.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

It's kind of odd to me: the same people who ignore or think scientific data is fudged/disingenuous will regale you in stories about talking snakes, giants, people who lived for 1,000 years, and how Adam and Eve played fetch with T-Rex in the Garden of Eden.

I don't see any of those people in here.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

I don't see any of those people in here.

We could fill a book with things you don't see, boob.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

It would have blank pages.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

It would have pictures so I could get it.

FIFY

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

I wish I was as smart as Bob.

FIFY

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

knighttimejoe has at least 35 IQ points on me

FIFY

 

[anon_x731qvsnsyb8i]

Get a prious. Use coal-power to charge your car...made of plastic. A biodegradable car that runs off urine would impress me more.

 

[1ofTheseKnights]

Get a prious. Use coal-power to charge your car...made of plastic. A biodegradable car that runs off urine would impress me more.

These tupid mother fuccers think they're saving planet when they're just being duped like the suckers they are.

Ratio of how old the earth is vs how old humanity is but yup thanks to bubbas dually fillin up at china mart were 200-300 years away from uninhabitable status unless you do as I say (not as I do cos I get to keep my planes & family coal fortune empire)

 

[UCFEE]

Please read this about the reliability of climate models. It'll tell you about why your number there isn't reality. Also mildly supports your general conclusion but with much more care and caution than your religious fervor.

You also can't say that climate change is 7.2 billion times worse than heart disease to humans and something needs to be done and then later claim to not be discussing policy changes affected by the accuracy or not of climate models.

Was referring specifically to the IPCC model, for which the statement still stands. All models (climate, economic, etc) have flaws in their predictive power, but they're still useful in making predictions over a range of errors.

Also said downside risk of putting greenhouse gases in to the atmpsphere unabated (i.e. the worst-case where the food chain becomes so distupted to the point that the species humans rely on for survival die out) versus the downside risk of a guy putting cholesterol in to his body unabated (i.e. worst case a guy croraks from heart disease) is 7.2 billion times more impactful.

 

[UCFEE]

These tupid mother fuccers think they're saving planet when they're just being duped like the suckers they are.

Ratio of how old the earth is vs how old humanity is but yup thanks to bubbas dually fillin up at china mart were 200-300 years away from uninhabitable status unless you do as I say (not as I do cos I get to keep my planes & family coal fortune empire)

And scientists are the stupid mother fucers? Riiiiight.

 

[goodknightfl]

Look I have a number of squiggly lights, and my wife drives a car that get 34.5 mph average. The people who pretend to have all the knowledge are the same ones who do the most polluting. Gore and his private jets, mansions, and huge house boats. He yells louder and does more damage. The Prez who's wife can't even travel on vacation with him but instead causes us to fly 2 AF planes to Haw.

 

[1ofTheseKnights]

And scientists are the stupid mother fucers? Riiiiight.

Prolly plenty of expert scientists in 1915 look like stupid mother fukkers now... the hubris of people to think "I've got it all figured it out" LOL amazes me

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Successful scientists are actually very smart. They go where the money is and produce the results the people paying them want. The ignorance of you so called educated people is astounding.

 

[UCFEE]

Scientists engaged in that behaviour aren't scientists. They've missed the whole point.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

I has at least 35 IQ points.

FIFY

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

FIFY

That's the best you could do? Lame.

 

[FearTheKnight]

Prolly plenty of expert scientists in 1915 look like stupid mother fukkers now... the hubris of people to think "I've got it all figured it out" LOL amazes me

Successful scientists are actually very smart. They go where the money is and produce the results the people paying them want. The ignorance of you so called educated people is astounding.

You're both about 10% correct, with 99% of that coming from Coke. We don't get paid enough to make shit up for money, that's for the private sector. Arguing against the scientific community with your gut instinct is probably not a winning strategy.

 

[goodknightfl]

And scientists are the stupid mother fucers? Riiiiight.

Stupid and mistaken are to different things.

The whole global warming thing was started to sell carbon credits. That was not science it was ENRON and greed.

 

[Sir Galahad]

Cliffs:

In another shocking turn of events, the dip shit Republicans in this thread don't believe in Global Warming. On the other side, the dip shit Democrats believe we have about 15 years left before Mother Earth floods. Fab, who sides with everything the Catholic church teaches, doesn't believe the Pope here. Sir Gal revealed for the 7,000th time he is a jew and a works as a CPA, and Bob rambled on and was clearly posting drunk yet again.

In other words, this went along just like every dumb ass political thread does in da Coola.

I haven't worked as a CPA in 25 years.

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

You're both about 10% correct, with 99% of that coming from Coke. We don't get paid enough to make shit up for money, that's for the private sector. Arguing against the scientific community with your gut instinct is probably not a winning strategy.

The private sector is funding most of the global warming research...

 

[UCFBS]

The Pope only spoke out because too many of the far religious right keep misquoting from the Bible that God gave Man the Earth and that God will save Man from any issues. They utterly miss the point that we inherited the Earth, and we are responsible for it.

That said ... between a lot of "doomsday" predictions and the "this is nominal," there is actual truth. Remember, many scientists also predicted "Global Cooling" in the '70s due to the combination of the cool cycle of North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) combined with Particulate Matter from Sulfides, Nitrates, etc... which are a Global Cooling factor (reflects sunlight).

Which means when you have a scientific illiterate "intellectual," like the President, he says scientifically stupid things like about his daughter's allergies. E.g., blaming Global Warming on increasing Particulate Matter from the resulting forest fires, forgetting the EPA has constantly tracked the reduction in Particulate Matter since the '80s, and any Particulate Matter from fires would actually work against Global Warming.

I.e., drought and forest fires, resulting in Particulate Matter that increases Global Cooling, are actually Nature's own defense against Global Warming. It's because we have greatly reduced Particulate Matter in the last 30+ years, reducing allergens, that we have further increased the factors of Global Warming.

Now I'm not calling for increased Particulate Matter, no, that would be irresponsible. But it does show how ignorant the President is ... that his daughter's allergies are less of an issue than just 1 generation back, because we reduced Particulate Matter, which has only increased the rate of Global Warming.