Pope on Climate Change

[Alate_One]

Geologic Global Climate Changes
Author: Nasif Nahle
Scientific Research Director-Biology Cabinet
. . .
Scientists have also observed that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases during periods of warming. However, an increase in temperature always precedes an increase in carbon dioxide, which generally occurs decades or centuries after any change of temperature. We have not observed an increase in the concentration of Carbon Dioxide to have preceded a period of warming.
. . .​

Are you incapable of reading what I posted?

Feedback loops increase the amount of CO2 as the climate warms. In a natural system it exaggerates changes brought about by changes in the earth's orbit and solar output.

Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming. This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

Source

If that doesn't work just go to this site and read everything there. All you're doing is recycling failed arguments created by someone else.

 

[Huckleberry]

Everything we do has a consequence. Meteorologists are saying we are so interconnected that the flap of a butterfly's wings in the rain forest can contribute to a hurricane in the U.S.

Yes, a flap of a butterfly wing's worth. Minus all the energy lost between here and there.

Calling that negligible would be insanely generous.

 

[OCTOBER23]

SATAN WANTS TO SAVE HIS WORLDLY SOCIETY

EARTHQUAKES HAVE MULTIPLIED

ROARING OF THE WAVES HAS MULTIPLIED

" THE END IS NEAR "

People get ready for the day is coming

 

[gcthomas]

Why should I believe in "orbital changes"?

What influenced the earth to change it's orbit?

The gravity of Jupiter and Saturn, mostly. See Milankovitch cycles.

What proof do you have?

There is convincing observational evidence, as well as the original theoretical prediction. The verification happened in the 1970s.

Since we have natural cycles, how do you know that we are not in a natural warming cycle?

Because the effects can be easily calculated, for both the cycles and for the CO2 forcing. CO2 it is.

Since the globe has not warmed as scientists have predicted, especially in the last 10-15 years, what is the problem? Are the global warming scientists wrong? Maybe the natural cooling cycle has begun and is negating the predicted warming? Why has the warming stopped? Do you know? The "scientists" do not know. How would you know?

The atmosphere hasn't warmed, since the heat has been forced in to the oceans during the el Nina, but the heat is here anyway, and will be returned to the atmosphere now a strong el nino is starting. See here, for example:

Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say

Exclusive: Findings make a nonsense of claims of a 'pause' in global warming​

 

[rexlunae]

The climate changes caused by natural warming and cooling cycles far exceed any small changes a cow's fart will cause.

Not true, and we aren't exactly talking about one cow, are we?

Yes, that chaos theory.

Yes, the flap of the butterfly's wings can do that so, we could have the same butterfly stop hurricanes in their tracks.

You should find that butterfly and train to stop all future hurricanes.

If a butterfly can do that, what could you do to stop all future weather disasters? How much could your prayers change the course of history?

I honestly don't know why you guys are talking about butterflies. We're not talking about anything that small-scale or chaotic.

For that matter, global warming scientists cannot explain why the globe has not warmed for the last 10-15 years when their "scientific" models predicted increasing "global warming"

It has.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/04/global-warming-hasnt-paused-study-finds

Back in the seventies, the scientists were prediction global cooling, I am still waiting for that to happen.

A minority of scientists. And they were wrong.

So what if the globe warms up! Most people like warmer climates anyway. They should be thankful! But they should be warned that the natural cycles of warming and cooling will continue.

Most people don't, however, enjoy stronger storms, loss of land areas currently inhabited by people, the destruction of entire ecosystems, threats to the food supply, and refugees.

After this period of global warming there will be a period of global cooling like there was a few centuries ago, before the industrial revolution.

[citation needed]

 

[Stripe]

[url="http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4467140#post4467140"]Are you incapable of reading what I posted?[/url]Feedback loops increase the amount of CO2 as the climate warms. In a natural system it exaggerates changes brought about by changes in the earth's orbit and solar output.[BOX]Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.[img]http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif[/img]This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. [B]In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. [/B]Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.[/BOX][url="http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm"]Source[/url]If that doesn't work just [url="http://www.skepticalscience.com/"]go to this site[/url] and read everything there. All you're doing is recycling failed arguments created by someone else.

We know why you like pretty pictures, but will avoid challenges to what you believe.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Are you incapable of reading what I posted?

Feedback loops increase the amount of CO2 as the climate warms. In a natural system it exaggerates changes brought about by changes in the earth's orbit and solar output.

Read the post following yours:

Yes, a flap of a butterfly wing's worth. Minus all the energy lost between here and there.

Calling that negligible would be insanely generous.

This is a very important point.

The computer models create an insane feedback loop for CO₂ because the models are missing the things that mitigate the effects in the same way that earlier models created an insane feedback loop for the movement of a butterfly half a world away.

Get a better model and you won't be afraid of an insane feedback loop for CO₂.

 

[gcthomas]

Read the post following yours:

This is a very important point.

The computer models create an insane feedback loop for CO₂ because the models are missing the things that mitigate the effects in the same way that earlier models created an insane feedback loop for the movement of a butterfly half a world away.

Get a better model and you won't be afraid of an insane feedback loop for CO₂.

The 'butterfly effect' is nothing to do with feedback loops, and nothing to do with the power of a single butterfly. It is simply that weather is chaotic in a technical sense, so your comments about models are meaningless.

(CO2 modelling has nothing to do with chaos, & the butterfly effect has nothing to do with computer modelling feedback loops)

 

[Stripe]

The 'butterfly effect' is nothing to do with feedback loops, and nothing to do with the power of a single butterfly. It is simply that weather is chaotic in a technical sense, so your comments about models are meaningless.

(CO2 modelling has nothing to do with chaos, & the butterfly effect has nothing to do with computer modelling feedback loops)

You should tell Aikido. :up:

 

[MortSullivan]

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:

I want to know what the Pope, and his many minions, are going to change about their own actions to help the environment.

Why would I take seriously the words of somebody who absolutely does NOT practice what he preaches?

 

[gcthomas]

I want to know what the Pope, and his many minions, are going to change about their own actions to help the environment.

Why would I take seriously the words of somebody who absolutely does NOT practice what he preaches?

Since domestic emissions are a small fraction of the total, the low hanging fruit is government policy. Are you suggesting that the Pope isn't trying to influence gov't policy?

 

[MortSullivan]

Since domestic emissions are a small fraction of the total, the low hanging fruit is government policy. Are you suggesting that the Pope isn't trying to influence gov't policy?

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm stating a fact.

The Pope - and the entirety of the RCC - is raping and pillaging the environment, while preaching just the opposite.


How many tons of emissions are spewed into the environment each year, by the Papal entourage?

Is there ANY building more wasteful of energy than a Catholic cathedral?


Come on people, it's time to start DOING.

 

[gcthomas]

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm stating a fact.

Facts claimed without evidence aren't reliably facts.

How many tons of emissions are spewed into the environment each year, by the Papal entourage?

Tell me - how many tonnes? Or don't you know?

Is there ANY building more wasteful of energy than a Catholic cathedral?

How much energy does a catholic cathedral in a warm country like Italy actually use? Does it have aircon then? I'd guess not, and I don't think you have thought about it much either.

Do you have any figures or are you just blowing hot air? :chuckle:

 

[MortSullivan]

Facts claimed without evidence aren't reliably facts.

Tell me - how many tonnes? Or don't you know?

How much energy does a catholic cathedral in a warm country like Italy actually use? Does it have aircon then? I'd guess not, and I don't think you have thought about it much either.

Do you have any figures or are you just blowing hot air? :chuckle:

I take it that you believe the Papal entourage somehow magically moves from place to place with no energy use whatsoever. Now THAT is true worship of the Pope!


You're welcome to believe what you want to believe - even against all evidence.

But if you claim to be pro-environment, and you're not, somebody is going to call you out on it.

You, and the rest of the "environmentalists" here are hypocrites. You simply don't practice what you preach.

 

[gcthomas]

I take it that you believe the Papal entourage somehow magically moves from place to place with no energy use whatsoever. Now THAT is true worship of the Pope!


You're welcome to believe what you want to believe - even against all evidence.

But if you claim to be pro-environment, and you're not, somebody is going to call you out on it.

You, and the rest of the "environmentalists" here are hypocrites. You simply don't practice what you preach.

So you have no evidence to back up what you claim about cathedral energy usage. Figures, since you seem to make up pretty much everything.

(The papal entourage fits in one jet, dontcha know, so little more fuel used than flying him on his own in his jet.) :wave:

 

[MortSullivan]

So you have no evidence to back up what you claim about cathedral energy usage. Figures, since you seem to make up pretty much everything.

(The papal entourage fits in one jet, dontcha know, so little more fuel used than flying him on his own in his jet.) :wave:

No seriously, it heats itself! In fact, it CREATES energy! Everyone knows that - duhh!!!

 

[gcthomas]

No seriously, it heats itself! In fact, it CREATES energy! Everyone knows that - duhh!!!

No evidence, no argument. How much energy does that cathedral use, compared to other large buildings you claimed it was worse than?

Come on - you are all mouth and no trousers.

 

[MortSullivan]

No evidence, no argument. How much energy does that cathedral use, compared to other large buildings you claimed it was worse than?

Come on - you are all mouth and no trousers.

Where did I compare it to other large buildings? FAIL.

But do go on. Prattle away. I'm sure those cathedrals heat themselves.

 

[Quetzal]

Where did I compare it to other large buildings? FAIL.

But do go on. Prattle away. I'm sure those cathedrals heat themselves.

Well, for starters you are being critical of the RCC for using lights and electricity. I don't need to point out how stupid of an argument this is. You can be in favor of renewable energy and support the idea of climate change while still taking a hot shower in the morning. Then you give the pope a hard time for traveling and using energy this way. Again, he is not going to walk and use a row boat to get from the the Vatican to the US, to expect him to do so is ridiculous.

You claim they are "raping and pillaging" the environment because he uses a plane to cross an ocean and uses electricity like the rest of us? A ludicrous argument with nothing to stand on. Then again, I have a strong suspicion you are nothing more than a run-of-the-mill troll and aren't interested in genuine discussion at all.

 

[gcthomas]

Where did I compare it to other large buildings? FAIL.

Here:

Is there ANY building more wasteful of energy than a Catholic cathedral?