Skip to main content

The four biggest mistakes we're making in the climate change debate Comments

Recently, Catholic Online published a story on the expansion of Arctic sea ice, suggesting the expansion of the ice represents a setback for the strident global-warming alarmist community. However, upon cool review of the evidence, the conclusion may be premature. Continue Reading

1 - 10 of 22 Comments

  1. DSL350
    1 year ago

    RS: “after admitting their models are worthless”
    Can you direct me to your source for the IPCC claim that they admit their models are worthless? I claim that you’re simply making this stuff up. Nullius in verba?

  2. DSL350
    1 year ago

    Richard,
    1. The carbon cycle is well-understood. It’s been at equilibrium for the last 8000 years (280ppm +/- 10ppm) until around 1850. Nature currently puts in about 750 GT CO2. Humans, last year, put in ~35 GT. Nature takes out about 770 GT. Since 1850, atmospheric CO2 has risen from 280ppm to 400ppm; that’s 100ppm more than at any point in the last 800,000 years. The rate of increase is greater than at any point in the last 300 million years, arguably longer (Honisch et al. 2012).

    Now, you claim or imply, or rather Marc Morano claims, or rather a Marc Morano staffer claims, that based on Levy et al. 2013, the oceans account for far more atmospheric carbon than humans. The paper itself makes no such claim. The paper itself simply claims that the ocean element of the global carbon cycle is capable of much more variability than currently incorporated into global carbon models. Note that the paper itself is a model-based study. If you believe that the oceans are responsible for the current spike in atmospheric CO2, then you have several problems to overcome. First, you have to show that the mechanisms Levy et al. 2013 describes are actually working on the timescale and strength necessary to explain the current 150-year trend (Levy does not do this, despite having every opportunity and Nobel-prize motivation). You’d then have to explain away human-sourced CO2. You’d then have to explain why the trends in atmospheric CO2, organic carbon, and atmospheric O2 are all pretty much parallel (O2 reversed).

    Good luck.
    2. RS: “There are occasional short-lived fluctuations in the solar magnetic field ("Forbush decreases"); Wikipedia has an article on them, and the observed effect on cloud water content (measured by microwave sensors over ocean): "A 2009 peer reviewed article[2] found that low clouds contain less liquid water following Forbush decreases, and for the most influential events the liquid water in the oceanic atmosphere can diminish by as much as 7%.”

    Very short-lived. Very rare. Significant effects occur in a very small part of the overall atmosphere. See Usoskin 2009. Definitely not capable of producing a climate-scale (or even monthly-scale) trend. And your point was . . . ?

    3. RS: “The greenhouse effect (i.e., the back radiation from atmosphere to earth) is logarithmic; each increment of GHG has only half the effect of a previous equal increment. We're at steady state; there's enough CO2 in the atmosphere already, affecting only 5% of Earth's emission spectrum, that adding more is past the point of diminishing returns.”
    What are you claiming here? That saturation has already occurred? Nope. It’s easy to make that claim. It sounds science-ey. Nevertheless, the basic formula that you seem to agree with—the logarithmic nature of the decrease in radiative forcing—is a stable formula. Show your math. When did the absorption bands for CO2 become saturated, Richard?

    4. RS: “Proof? We've added CO2 for 17 years, with NO TEMPERATURE INCREASE. That's a fundamental contradiction of the basic concept of the climate models. “
    No. First of all, the theory of anthropogenic global warming is not based on any general circulation model. It’s based on physics. The temp could be plunging downward, and it would still be a warmer trend than if the enhanced greenhouse effect were not there.

    Second, your 17 year claim is based on surface temperature. About 4-5% of the accumulating energy via the enhanced greenhouse effect is going into the troposphere/surface. Over 90% is going into the huge thermal mass of the oceans, and another 2-3% is going into global ice mass loss. What you’re trying to do is akin to writing a review of a restaurant based on sampling one appetizer and drinking a glass of water. Ocean heat content shows no “hiatus” over the last 20 years (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png). Global ice mass loss has accelerated over the last decade (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183 ; http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum11.html). Thus, your claim of “no temperature increase” is false.

    Third, even if we focus on surface temp, you’re guilty of cherry-picking. Your 17-year period starts with a massive El Nino (1997/8). So, yah, if you start from a mountain top, where do you expect to go? Well, as it turns out, we’ve gone up from that mountain top. 1997/8 set the global temp record for the instrumental period. It’s been beaten three times since, and the trend since then is positive (not statistically significant, but that doesn’t mean much in this case). Take the trend from 1974-2007 – over 30 years – it’s just a hair under the expect rate of surface warming. How can that be? If global warming stopped in 1997, how can a whole decade’s worth of flat temps not have caused a much below-expected trend? In reality, surface temp has deviated unexpectedly from the ensemble model mean only in the last five years. In reality, general circulation models weren’t built for short-term projections. In reality, comparing surface temp to the ensemble model mean is like comparing your dog to the average of all dogs and saying, “My dog doesn’t look like the average dog; therefore it’s not a dog.” Observed temperature is, even over the last five years, still within the 95% confidence range for the CMIP3 regime ensemble runs. The average of those runs is irrelevant.

    And when one thinks about where the temp trend can go—where it’s possible to go, or even reasonable—it then becomes remarkable what general circulation models have done.


  3. Robert Rhodes aka Ozonator
    1 year ago

    If CO2 is the deniers’ fertilizer, than AGW earthquakes are the plowing and fireballs from meteors are the rain.
    I was graciously allowed to predict “impossible”global warming (AGW) predictions in the blog comments of
    insidecostarica.com/2013/09/05/magnitude-6-0-earthquake-rocks-guanacaste/#comment-1031471400
on ~7:59 PM CST 9/5/13 under my icon.

    From AGW, there have been 3 correct and 3 significant AGW quake predictions and 2 correct AGW fireball predictions, clearly possible (8 impossible, non-random out of 33).

  4. Richard C. Savage
    1 year ago

    Perhaps the most laughable part - it's hard to make a choice - of the recently-released draft IPCC report is that, after admitting their models are worthless, they've actually INCREASED their confidence that humans are responsible for most of the global warming for the last century. It's now 95%, up from 90%. What these numbers are based on, nobody can say.

    The writers are to meet next week with the funding governments; supposedly, there are 1800+ questions on the table to be answered.

    It should be hilarious. There may be no final report at all.

  5. Louis Barta
    1 year ago

    There is nothing anyone can do to reverse climate change on earth. Our solar system has moved into or near the turbulent boundary between the Local Interstellar Cloud (which our solar system has been inside for the past 150,000 years) and the Local Bubble (also called the G-cloud.) The temperature of the fluffy, mildly-magnetic LIC is 6,000 degrees Kelvin, whereas the temperature of the highly-magnetic (and expansive) G-cloud is around one million degrees Kelvin, hence the dynamic interaction between these two diverse interstellar media.

    The G-cloud is composed of stellar debris left behind by a series of nearby supernova explosions that occurred 3-10 million years ago. Its intense magnetic field is agitating and altering the way all the heavenly bodies in our solar system (especially the sun) function..

    When the sun becomes agitated, it performs erratically and, as a consequence, weather patterns on earth are altered. No amount of human effort or technology can counteract the G-cloud's magnetic agitating effect on our weather-maker sun.

    The outcome of these anomalies (and of the many others which are simultaneously taking place) are foretold in Biblical prophecies and in prophecies granted by Our Lady of LaSalette and Fatima regarding the coming of a relatively brief yet catastrophic global tribulation which will be followed by a lengthy holy Marian Age of peace and bounty on earth.

    All other discussions or debates about climate change (or global warming) that do not take holy Catholic prophecies into account are essentially worthless because they seek to usurp the governorship of God, who is employing the forces of nature to shepherd his errant human flock back to grace. But since no one is listening, expect the world's climate to become infinitely more unpredictable and ominously unstable than it already is.


  6. Richard C. Savage
    1 year ago

    "The FIRST mistake too many people make, including the writer of this article, is discuss the issue of Climate Change using terms that may imply that there is a CREDIBLE debate. There isn't. EVERY respected scientific institution that considered the issue concluded about the same..." [Reduce GHGs]

    The first - and most important mistake - is to treat climate change, a scientific question, in disregard of the Scientific Method (SM), formulated long ago by real scientists like Harvey, DesCartes, Galileo, et al.

    The first principle of the SM is that authority, without evidence to support it, is worthless. "Nullius in verba" ("take nobody's word for it") is the difference between modern science and Aristotle's authority.

    Sad and anti-scientific that people like the above writer keep trying to impose authoritarian "consensus" on science. Even worse that such people are trying to tell credulous children in our schools that this is science.

  7. Jerry N
    1 year ago

    Simon: "Sadly people like Jerry are too gripped by their political doctrine to see the wood for the trees. "

    Sadly, there are many people like Simon who don't have the first clue about science, and so must cast dispersions on others with no basis in fact. Where's even one scrap of scientific data that supports your bogus claims about me or about the environment?

    DSL350: "What counts as actual science, Jerry? I'm going to guess your answer. Let's see if I'm right."

    What counts as actual science are verifiable and repeatable measurements of physical phenomena and mathematical models that predict the behavior of physical phenomena with a quantifiable degree of fidelity to what really happens. When conclusions reached from both measured evidence, and from mathematical predictions agree, then we have a solid scientific theory that can be believed. "Global warming" and "climate change" pass neither the experimental nor the analytical tests of science. The measurements thereof are inconclusive at best and mostly unrepeatable, and the models thereof have not come close to predicting anything approximating reality.

    DSL350:: "As far as surface temp and modeling goes, the expected trend persisted until 2008..."

    Please tell me whose surface temp measurements you are using and what model predicted the trend of those measurement? The most accurate NASA satellite global temperature measurements, that have only been made since 1979, do not follow any coherent trend, and there is no model that can remotely begin to be correlated to all the measurements made across the various layers of the earth's atmosphere, even for short periods of time, much less over longer terms like the 30+ years of available satellite data. Any predictive model that is no good at making short term predictions is complete garbage for making long term predictions.

    The global warming religionists always find excuses why none of their so-called "models" work in the short term, but yet always expect us to believe that they have the modeling magic to correctly predict the long term. How convenient that the models they insist we believe can only produce accurate predictions of events too far in the future for anyone to be alive who will care enough to bother checking their results.

  8. Sean Mason
    1 year ago

    If society could put aside the trivial name calling "global warming vs climate change" and move beyond the fact IF things are changing, where does that leave us? Let's assume the whole of the United States adopted a complete carbon-neutral lifestyle and moved away from non-sustainable petrol-chemical economy, what then? Do you think China would/could make the same change? Russia? India? Nuclear power isn't exactly a viable long-term solution and none of the remaining clean energy sources are affordable nor efficient enough to benefit emerging countries. Accepting climate change/global warming as a man-made event is rather mute when nobody has the means to adapt the global community to what is coming. The quadrillions of dollars it would cost to revolutionize the global energy markets is far beyond the financial capabilities of all the existing GWP's of the entire world.

  9. Richard C. Savage
    1 year ago

    In a previous comment, I neglected to thank Mr. Connolly for writing this article. I certainly don't agree with a lot (most) of what he said, but I appreciate the chance to interact on the subject.

    I say so because the US Conference of Catholic Bishops remains committed to the ridiculous (IMHO) proposition that Catholics should help the poor by increasing the cost of energy and food. (40% of the US corn crop goes into ethanol, with no benefit to the environment.) The USCCB discourages construction of coal-fired (i.e., inexpensive) electricity generators. I of course hope that at least some Catholic bishops - or members of their staffs - might be encouraged to change this position after reading the farce that "manmade global warming" has become.

  10. Richard C. Savage
    1 year ago

    Re: the remark by DSL350 that "...plus the rather well-supported proposition that humans are responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2.
    Simply not proven. As one of several papers tells us:
    "At the ocean surface, the authors find the oceans contribute 2.4 Petagrams of carbon per year to the atmosphere ["efflux"] and absorb 1.9 Petagrams of carbon per year from the atmosphere ["influx"], and thus, the oceans act as a net source of .5 Petagrams of carbon per year to the atmosphere. There are several other papers with the same finding referenced here:

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/new-paper-finds-oceans-are-net-source.html

    Also invalid are DSL350's remarks in regard to the Svensmarck Hypothesis that"... Svensmark's work is interesting and useful (if inconclusive at this point). However, it cannot explain the trend of the last fifty years, simply because the trends in GCRs and clouds don't match the model."

    There are occasional short-lived fluctuations in the solar magnetic field ("Forbush decreases"); Wikipedia has an article on them, and the observed effect on cloud water content (measured by microwave sensors over ocean): "A 2009 peer reviewed article[2] found that low clouds contain less liquid water following Forbush decreases, and for the most influential events the liquid water in the oceanic atmosphere can diminish by as much as 7%.

    DSL350 also misstates the radiative transfer properties of a greenhouse gas (GHG): "Physics says that if we increase atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, the climate system stores more energy."

    The greenhouse effect (i.e., the back radiation from atmosphere to earth) is logarithmic; each increment of GHG has only half the effect of a previous equal increment. We're at steady state; there's enough CO2 in the atmosphere already, affecting only 5% of Earth's emission spectrum, that adding more is past the point of diminishing returns.

    Proof? We've added CO2 for 17 years, with NO TEMPERATURE INCREASE. That's a fundamental contradiction of the basic concept of the climate models.


Leave a Comment

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment

Newsletter Sign Up

Daily Readings

Reading 1, Job 9:1-12, 14-16
Job spoke next. He said: Indeed, I know it is as you say: how ... Read More

Psalm, Psalms 88:10-11, 12-13, 14-15
Do you work wonders for the dead, can shadows rise up to praise ... Read More

Gospel, Luke 9:57-62
As they travelled along they met a man on the road who said to ... Read More

Saint of the Day

October 1 Saint of the Day

St. Therese of Lisieux
October 1: Generations of Catholics have admired this young saint, called ... Read More