Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: The Pope and the Planet

Worst. Graph. Ever. Where'd you get it? Fox News?...

2009-04-24T12:32:00.000-04:00

Worst. Graph. Ever.

Where'd you get it? Fox News?

Whoever wrote the troll remover script for GreaseM...

2009-04-23T23:08:00.000-04:00

Whoever wrote the troll remover script for GreaseMonkey (I'm sorry, I cannot remember who), thanks again for making this a better place to visit. SNW is my latest addition.

I am not sure what is so controversial about this ...

2009-04-23T22:40:00.000-04:00

I am not sure what is so controversial about this finding. Catholics believe that human beings are stewards of the planet... it is their duty and responsibility to care for the Earth. This has been the Church's official position since the debate on global warming has begun (so far as I can recall).

I also believe people are getting their facts distorted as to where the debate on Global Warming should be taking place. People who argue that recent temperature deviations are not occurring and/or are not significant are quite mistaken. The debate is to what extent are human actions affecting the climate. Science has not come to a conclusive finding as to what amount of the variance in global warming can be ascribed to man made causes.

Full disclosure: I am a Catholic and I believe man made actions are, at least in part, causing temperature deviations from past norms.

Sorry Dick, A troll with friends does not a troll ...

2009-04-23T22:37:00.000-04:00

Sorry Dick, A troll with friends does not a troll cease to be. Until he apologizes, I'll be following him all over this board to post troll alerts warning people not to feed him.

Statler: Mike is not a troll. I don't always agree...

2009-04-23T21:00:00.000-04:00

Statler: Mike is not a troll. I don't always agree with him or like the way he phrases things, but he is posting relevant opinions and backing them up with facts. You often make good points yourself, when you're not focused on attacking Mike. I think both of you need to cool it.

Bradford: I don't think this is the best analysis, either, but the fact remains that this is not the place to argue AGW science.

Remember folks, no matter how trollish he gets, do...

2009-04-23T19:52:00.000-04:00

Remember folks, no matter how trollish he gets, don't feed Mike in Trollyland!

D
N
F
T
T

Statler, If you got some basic facts correct, you...

2009-04-23T19:41:00.000-04:00

Statler,

If you got some basic facts correct, your comments might be a bit more considered as having any basis of consideration.

Point: You apparently have no clue as to the geographic location of Maryland's Eastern Shore. You also show a willing total and complete lack of knowledge knowledge of the Chesapeake Bay blue crabbing industry, where the crabs are harvested, and where the crabs are consumed.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

BTW, Statler, you still haven't responded with an analysis of what was done correctly, and what was done wrong in the Baehr v. Lewin case in Hawaii.

Scared to admit that some of strategy you promote ('Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.') does not always work? Just an admission, without great detail, would show that you have some intellectual honesty. Lack of that admission indicates that you just might be in the class of little shrub, who couldn't think of even one thing that he had done wrong during his Presidency.

Mike in Trollyland strikes again, this time to tro...

2009-04-23T19:22:00.000-04:00

Mike in Trollyland strikes again, this time to troll the pope!

It's hard to tell which has the pointier head!

Richard- I actually agree with you, if only Nate ...

2009-04-23T18:58:00.000-04:00

Richard-

I actually agree with you, if only Nate would use his skills for good. This post spun a few data points to support a political position - which is not better when Nate or Boehner do it.

It is clearly not "politics done right" it is instead "politics done to shitty Fox News average"

Antonio33 said... Catholics should know that Pope ...

2009-04-23T18:39:00.000-04:00

Antonio33 said...
Catholics should know that Pope Benedict has spoken against the global warming hoax.

He did?

When?

Maybe you see him denying AGW in this statement?:

"We need to care for the environment: it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion. Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man. Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves."

Maybe you need to expand your research beyond the first one or two pages of Google? Because you can find a discussion of the so-called AGW denial by Pope Benedict at:

http://www.nhne.org/news/NewsArticlesArchive/tabid/400/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/4020/Popes-Global-Warming-Comments-Misconstrued.aspx

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

Point of clarification: I am not Catholic, therefore I am not backing up Pope Rat's comments because of religion.

Catholics should know that Pope Benedict has spoke...

2009-04-23T17:48:00.000-04:00

Catholics should know that Pope Benedict has spoken against the global warming hoax. “Fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering,” he said. "It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions," he said. Using the global warming hoax, Obama plans to impose Cap and Trade, which “would be the equivalent of an atomic bomb directed at the U.S. economy—all without any scientific justification,” says internationally famed climatologist Dr. S. Fred Singer. Cap and Trade will increase taxes; increase the cost of energy; force many companies to close; and multiply unemployment, poverty and despair. As Catholics, we must fight the global warming/Cap-and-Trade scam that is threatening our future and the future of our children.

The simple problem with Obama's cap and trade and ...

2009-04-23T15:44:00.000-04:00

The simple problem with Obama's cap and trade and other schemes to reduce green house gases is that he can only make these things happen in the USA. China, India and Brazil, along with host of other nations in the developing world are not inclined to do anything about the problem. They are too busy growing their economies and trying to expand prosperity for their people to worry about the speculative ills of CO2 gasses.

Obama, on the other hand, has the arrogance and malevolence to vainly try and reduce US output of these green house gases without caring that he will lower our standard of living and further destroy the competitiveness of our industry on a global basis, leading to fewer jobs and less income for our people while we choke on the fumes wafting over the Pacific from Asia.

Madness!

PeteKent01 (follow me on twitter)

Somewhere, Edward Tufte is weeping at the fact tha...

2009-04-23T15:41:00.000-04:00

Somewhere, Edward Tufte is weeping at the fact that that graph was published by a reputable organization.

Bradford - why do you insist on turning posts abou...

2009-04-23T14:25:00.000-04:00

Bradford - why do you insist on turning posts about politics and polling into discussions of climate science? This post is about one thing: Nate's hypothesis that Catholics are more likely to believe in man-made global warming than non-Catholics and the data on which he bases his conclusion. This was a good discussion of methodologies until you came in here spouting irrelevancies. Please, don't turn every thread here into a debate about AGW.

What percentage of these people think that homosex...

2009-04-23T12:38:00.000-04:00

What percentage of these people think that homosexuality and allowing the spread of 'sin' is causing global warming, much the same way that it caused 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina?

It's a fairly ambiguous question.

True, the heat trapping properites of carbon dioxi...

2009-04-23T12:32:00.000-04:00

True, the heat trapping properites of carbon dioxide (and even worse methane) are well knowm.

To the above-

I did say I would IPCC numbers for this discussion and they claim a 0.12% drop for the sun, when prior estimates were about twice that thus that is where I got the number. I don't have time now, but was looking through the IPCC and they do talk about a change since 1750, but I didn't find iot elsewhere. Do you folks really argue that sun's output is completely irrelevant?

We need a new thread, even I tire of this one!!!

I read Rudy@7:42 pm 4/22 and felt compelled to res...

2009-04-23T11:55:00.000-04:00

I read Rudy@7:42 pm 4/22 and felt compelled to respond immediately, my apologies if someone else has already said this in the comments I haven't read yet. Rudy says: "physicists are unable to replicate the earth's atmosphere in the lab, and unable to demonstrate the theoretical heat trapping mechanism." This is blatantly false. The heat-trapping or "greenhouse" physical characteristics of CO2 gas have been demonstrated in labs repeatedly for many, many years. I recommend to anyone interested Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming" for the history of how that science has developed over the last century+. Rudy also gives a red herring regarding water vapor. It certainly is a powerful greenhouse gas, but as it remains fairly constant (well, actually increasing due to warming--warmer air holds more water, providing a positive feedback), it is far less important to current CHANGES than CO2, which has been increasing drastically due to human activity. Climate science has no "dirty little secrets," it's all on public display in the scientific journals and the IPCC reports.

Hugo Chavez handshake bump?

2009-04-23T10:17:00.000-04:00

Hugo Chavez handshake bump?

Bradford- You're last two messages don't make too...

2009-04-23T10:16:00.000-04:00

Bradford-

You're last two messages don't make too much terrible sense.

Read what I wrote about the model again. Solar output is hypothesized to have increased by .1-.6% since the Maunder Minimum. The minimum is hardly what you can claim as normal (although the sun is in such minimums roughly a quarter of the time over the past 2000 years). So many models assume an increase of .25% since the minimum, not since the beginning of the last three cycles. Since we are coming off a maximum, and if the total output increased by .6%, then .25% is still a useful number. You say output could fall by .2-.4%, that is, fall .2-.4% from the maximum. If we take the greatest maximum (.6%), even your greatest predicted drop would put us into an increase of solar output of .2% or so compared to the last minimum. So models that assume a .25% increase are actually quite relevant, even more so since it will take a while to come out of the maximum (which you seemed to completely ignore the relevancy of). Historically that seems to take more than a century. So we'll hit your "normal" first (which would be what, the late 1800s/early 1900s?), and then if the minimum is as bad as the Maunder, we'll come to that decades later.

Besides, the last two cycles are not historical highs, though close. The highest cycles are 19, 21, and 22. 22 being the first of the last three cycles.

I still can't see how your math adds up (where you claim the model is off by .5% in solar input [did you mean output?]). You'll have to fill me in there.

Bradford, 23 April 7:48 am and following: Countin...

2009-04-23T09:58:00.000-04:00

Bradford, 23 April 7:48 am and following:

Counting on unpredictable behavior of the Sun to bail us out seems foolish. All you can do is to bracket the impact of different plausible behaviors; and that has been done in the IPCC models and scenarios.

Sean, 23 April 6:14 am: I guess the Catholic Chur...

2009-04-23T09:57:00.000-04:00

Sean, 23 April 6:14 am:

I guess the Catholic Church has always had a respect for learning and scholarship. As an outsider, I suspect that they will eventually change their minds about contraception: I don’t think the issue is really theological or moral, but tactical: They want more Catholics to be born. But I don’t think they will ever change their view on abortion.

Bradford, 22 April 5:44 am: - “Can we stop AGW?” Y...

2009-04-23T09:56:00.000-04:00

Bradford, 22 April 5:44 am:
- “Can we stop AGW?” Yes, we can limit the extent of global warming to 3 degrees-C; see the IPCC report. It takes cutting back on CO2 emissions.
- “Do we fully understand the consequences?” Do we fully understand the consequences of ANYTHING? No. Does that stop us from acting on the basis of the understanding we DO have? Not if we’re intelligent.
- “Do the models take into account other effects?” Yep, as much as people know about. By the way, solar luminosity has not varied by 1 part in 1000 over the past 20 years; that’s not significant. Models can only take into account what is expected; by definition, unexpected behavior is out of scope. Otherwise, shouldn’t all predictions about the future include the possibility that UFOs take over Australia tomorrow?

WhySharksMatter, 22 April 12:35 pm: Yes, all of t...

2009-04-23T09:55:00.001-04:00

WhySharksMatter, 22 April 12:35 pm:

Yes, all of these issues are important. That doesn’t mean that you abandon some in favor of others. The real point is that people have to take responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of our actions – all of them.

newyorker2874999, 22 April 10:25 pm: The environm...

2009-04-23T09:55:00.000-04:00

newyorker2874999, 22 April 10:25 pm:

The environmental impact of humanity is likely proportional to the population. But the coefficient can be adjusted by improvement of technology, and we don’t know any lower limit it has, or how fast it can be reduced.

Rudy, 22 April 7:42 pm: - “% of CO2 is small”: It...

2009-04-23T09:54:00.000-04:00

Rudy, 22 April 7:42 pm:

- “% of CO2 is small”: It’s true that there is a lot more water vapor than CO2; but it also true that the 15-micron infrared band is hardly affected by water vapor, but IS absorbed by CO2. That is the reason that CO2 is important. The other point is that the radiative forcing (the imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiant energy, which is 0 when the planet is in steady-state) due to CO2 is increased by 3.7 Watts/m^2 for every doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. So what is important is not the absolute value of CO2 concentration but the fact that this concentration has already increased 35% over the past 150 years – an astonishingly quick rate of increase.
- “Can’t reproduce atmospheric effect in lab”: That’s because the greenhouse effect depends on the fact that the temperature at the top of the atmosphere is lower than the temperature at the ground level. This is governed by the adiabatic lapse rate, about 10 degrees-C per kilometer. Yes, it’s going to be hard to build a lab big enough to show that, just as it’s hard to build a lab that can reproduce the workings of the Sun. But in both cases, the basic physics is pretty well understood, because you can check and cross-check other aspects of the physics.
- “Science is immature”: The science has been studied for over 100 years, and is fully consistent with everything we know about quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, gas dynamics, radiative transfer theory, etc., etc. The arguments propounded by AGW-denying websites don’t even come close. They are even inconsistent among each other. If atmospheric science is poorly understood, you should also worry about the science behind computers. Watch out! Maybe your PC will bite you!
- “CO2 more likely beneficial”: Not according to people who have examined the implications from increased CO2 in detail, for its implications for agriculture, biodiversity, ocean acidification. More and more real examples are seen, so it is no longer a “maybe this will happen”: scientists already see impaired shell growth in shellfish, in coral; birds migrating longer and longer distances (which is a severe danger to their survival); not only polar bears, but now walruses also under threat. And these are all things that will affect humanity: We depend on the planet, and big changes to the planet are a problem for us.