Anti-Green Philosophy

[lynnvinc]

Your first sentence brought to my mind the title of a book that I haven’t read, but nonetheless understand the gist enough to recommend it here. It is called, “The Long Emergency.” It is largely about Peak Worldwide Oil Production, and when that might be, i.e. in the near future or the recent past, and what will happen to our petroleum-dependent lifestyles after that.

That’s a problem we’ve long known about for over 40 years. It was the impetus for me to make sure we always lived within a mile or two of work and had an energy efficient car, so as the save resources for future generations.

A great docu on this is “A Crude Awakening” with top oil execs and experts being frank about peak oil and how stats are finagled to make it look like we have not reached peak. For a partial of the docu see youtube.com/watch?v=NlVNyJFBCxc

A terrible aspect is that our agriculture is highly dependent on oil – oil is what has made it so productive over the past 100 years and allowed for such a large population. Poor countries, like India, still use bullocks for plowing, so they would not be as badly hurt if oil were to run out or there was some terrorist or embargo disruption of world oil supply.

My sense is that we have reached peak oil and are on the long downside; otherwise we would not be going after very difficult & expensive oil – extremely deep off-shore oil and tar sands (with a very poor return – I think 2 units of energy output for every one unit (name removed by moderator)ut, and at terrible harm and risk to the local environments). Of course now with Arctic Ocean ice melting – it could be ice free in summer by 2035 – there is a huge oil dome under the Arctic oil companies are salivating over (they actually hope global warming will make it easy for them to get it). So we may have this extention for a few more decades.

But now we are aware of another problem, aside from the local and regional pollution that also chokes and kills us – global warming. James Hansen, top NASA climate scientist, has warned that if we burn all fossil fuels we could tip the earth system into runaway warming and end all life on earth, and if we burn the unconventional sources (that require more energy (name removed by moderator)ut), like tar sands and oil shale, it is a dead certainty – see esp p. 24 of columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf

Bringing this back to anti-green philosophy – I think such a philosophy is premised on the anti-Christian idea that there will always be material progress, which actually does come from Christianity (with the spiritual turned into material progress), but leaves off the Apocalypse, the End Times, the time to “pay the piper” or Mephistopheles.

The anti-green philosophy is inherently evil for its disrespect of environmental science and environmental scientists, because they run counter to its vision. I understand its “progress” idea bec I was reared with that. However, I did see the disconnect between the secular world view of progress and the spiritual view of sin and its repercussions and that eventually there would be the End-Times (I thought well after my time, nothing to worry about much, and besides my own end-time could come at anytime, so I should always be in a state of grace & prepared).

I did understand that material progress done in morally wrong ways could be our undoing – there’s a lot about the dangers of wealth in the Gospels, and lack of sharing and caring – but I had less understanding that material progress done in a profligate and materially wrong way (even if we were to suddenly start doing it in a morally upright way – which we have no real intentions of doing) could lead to complete doom. Yes, we’d run out of finite resources, then it would be back to the horse and buggy, which sort of appealed to me, being a horse lover. Only in the past 25 years have I understood this profligate prodigal emitting of greenhouse gases (along with harms from concomitant pollution) could lead to wiping out a large portion of life on earth, and in the past 5 years I have understood from Hansen’s AGU presentation and his book STORMS OF MY GRANDCHILDREN, perhaps all of life. (To me, the possibility of even wiping out 10% of humanity is cause enough to take this seriously and start doing something about it, even 3%, even 1%; I would not like to be responsible for the killing of even one person.)

That we would be causing the End Times actually fits the Bible. Isn’t it our sinfulness combined together that trigger it?

Not to sound gloomy my idea is that perhaps God does not necessary have a fixed End Times in mind. He continues to give us opportunities after opportunities to overcome our sinfulness and dangerous & harmful behavior, so this could be a Great Opportunity time to do that if He can get the attention of enough of us (He’s gotten mine!), and there could be real spiritual progress by living a truly more Christian life – the one Pope Francis envisions. And we could all live happily ever after…until some even worse generation in the distant future messes things up…or until the sun self-destructs…

We should strive to get into heaven and get as many souls in there as possible while the sun is shining and the wood is green. It may not be so good and easy when the wood is dry.

 

[lynnvinc]

Even I agree that human activity cause SOME global warming. We breath out CO2…and give out heat with our bodies and burn fires and have factories and drive cars and do a whole host of things that God knew before hand.
But, in order to ignore the world’s poor (who need fresh drinking water at a cost of a few trillion dollars) we are going to conclude that…1) some global warming is bad (more people live longer and more food is produced in warming earth cycles)

1. that it will lead to catastrophic death and destruction (rising ocean levels of 20 inches over 100 years is NOT catastrophic)
2. that MASSIVE and EXPENSIVE worldwide effort (while ignoring the poor) can effectively change the outcome…The best models show massive human effort leading to maybe 1 degree less over 75 years.

But hey…it’s Holy Thursday…and I’m going to leave these posts to your good graces…I hope and pray that all of you have a blessed Easter celebration in our Lord Jesus Christ!

Thanks, Pugsly. You have a blessed Triduum and Easter too.

Once one comes to face the problem, then our God-given human ingenuity kicks in and we come to understand many things:

1. We can actually save a lot of money by reducing our greenhouse gases in sensible ways, without sacrificing our living standards and economic productivity, at least down to a 75% reduction. Since that will take several decades or more to implement, we do not at this point have to worry about “sacrificing.” We may have to do that later, if we need to reduce further, or there may be some new tech developments by then that soften that.

There are expenses involved in transitioning to efficiency and alt energy – but these pay for themselves in the short or long-run and actually help economically. I know bec we’ve been saving $1000s over the 23 years that we’ve been mitigating AGW, reducing our GHG emissions by more than 60% below our 1990 emissions, while actually increasing our living standard.

We finally thought we were splurging with our Chevy Volt last year (our 2nd new car in 43 years), but found that even it will be saving us money, paying for the difference between it and the car hubby wanted within 6.5 years, and going on thereafter until the end of our lives (it’s our last car) to save and save…during our retirement! And we drive it on 100% wind-generated power, which will be 50% solar power within a few months as we go 50% solar (which will also be saving us $$ off our electric bill on upto the time we pass on to the arms of Jesus).

Amory Lovins (efficiency engineer) of the Rocky Mountain Institute figures our American economy can reduce its energy use by over 75% without lowering productivity. See his and Hawkin’s NATURAL CAPITALISM - natcap.org

1. It is the poor who are and will be suffering the most from the climate change impacts – and I think the most devastating impacts are those that are reducing world food productivity and potable water supplies (now in some poor nations, but later to a very terrible extent globally). I’ve studied this, and even charitable orgs, such as Catholic Relief Services and Oxfam, are alarmed that all the work they have been doing will come to naught with climate change doing great harm to the poor. They are at the forefront of calling on us to do our part re this problem.

It is because AGW is harming the poor that actually got me to get on the energy/resource efficiency/conservation & alt energy bandwagon and start mitigating AGW, beyond simply living close to work, which we’d been doing since 1970. The idea that I-me-myself am contributing to droughts & famines in Africa; that was the trigger that compelled me to act back in 1990.

 

[Love4All]

Not to sound gloomy my idea is that perhaps God does not necessary have a fixed End Times in mind. He continues to give us opportunities after opportunities to overcome our sinfulness and dangerous & harmful behavior, so this could be a Great Opportunity time to do that if He can get the attention of enough of us (He’s gotten mine!), and there could be real spiritual progress by living a truly more Christian life – the one Pope Francis envisions. And we could all live happily ever after…until some even worse generation in the distant future messes things up…or until the sun self-destructs…

We should strive to get into heaven and get as many souls in there as possible while the sun is shining and the wood is green. It may not be so good and easy when the wood is dry.

Amen, sister!

With Pope Francis, the whole world has entered a new era. Pope Francis learned from the Great John Paul II, to be devoted to the Rosary. He made a personal commitment to pray at least fifteen decades every day. If only the bishops and priests of the world would follow his lead, the Church will enter a new era of holiness, and the world will be converted. Then, when Our Lord returns in His glory to judge the world, many will be saved.

We are living now in the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, prophesied by her at Fatima. The Rosary is the Key. It is through her Rosary and Scapular that Mary will save the world, as she promised she would.

It has to begin in the priesthood and hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Now we have a Pope who is truly devoted to the Rosary. There could not be a greater sign. The whole world will be made holy, when the Catholic Church is made holy. But the Catholic Church will not be holy without her priesthood and hierarchy being made holy. So that is what has to happen now.

My own personal view is that there is much that is now given into the hands of the free will of human beings. Much could be saved, or, much could be destroyed. The natural disasters have already begun. God is now converting the world from its sins, one way or the other. If many accept God’s graces now, and enter into the praying of rosary after rosary after rosary asking for more graces of conversion from sin, then we might be able to keep much of, for example, technology that makes life in this world a little less painful. Or, if many reject those graces instead of accepting them, then much will be wiped out. It is like a father warning his children that if they cannot be responsible with the use of their toys, he is going to take them away. The world will enter spiritual poverty one way or the other. Either, through voluntarily accepting graces now, and entering the praying of rosary after rosary after rosary, or, through God inflicting extreme physical poverty as punishment for sin, and then voluntarily accepting graces and entering the praying of rosary after rosary after rosary. The only thing certain in the world’s future is the praying of rosary after rosary after rosary. How we get there, is up to us.

 

[wxornot]

Stupid and pointless petition. A scientist is a scientist. They are physicists, chemists, biologists, and often even just engineers who have absolutely no credibility or expertise when it comes to climate change. Simply asking any scientist you can what their opinion is is a pointless endeavor.

You mean like asking Al Gore?

 

[wxornot]

From what little I was able to gather in the limited time I have, it appears that the number of active climatologists in the study was only 77. Does anyone know how the figure of 3,146
“earth scientists” was derived? Is the general public included in that? Can I be an “earth scientist” without a MA, MS, or PhD? Sounds good! Or does it? Is an “earth scientist” seen as identical to an “active climatologist” among the general public? Should the results of one study be included with the results of another study? What about different n’s? We have an n=77 of “active climatologists”. What are the other n’s?

What is an “active publisher - all topics”?

I could be wrong without further study but it appears that different n’s were not taken into consideration with this graph as it shows only percentages of different groups (were n’s controlled?) and three responses to one question. I have a big problem with an n=77 in any research study. Where did that 3,146 number come from?

I am also concerned that this graph may have come from a master’s level thesis and that very few of the alleged “active climatologists” were at the PhD level.

I am an avid environmentalist. I also have problems with conclusions based on poor research. The graph shown is confusing at best and needs to be picked apart and examined before being accepted as anything indicating evidence. At this point I question the sample size and other methodology. I’m not an active climatologist. My background is in psychology research methodology. I see some red flags here.

scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/20/97-of-active-climatologists-ag/

 

[wxornot]

**From what little I was able to gather in the limited time I have, it appears that the number of active climatologists in the study was only 77. Does anyone know how the figure of 3,146
“earth scientists” was derived? Is the general public included in that? Can I be an “earth scientist” without a MA, MS, or PhD? Sounds good! Or does it? Is an “earth scientist” seen as identical to an “active climatologist” among the general public? Should the results of one study be included with the results of another study? What about different n’s? We have an n=77 of “active climatologists”. What are the other n’s? **

What is an “active publisher - all topics”?

I could be wrong without further study but it appears that different n’s were not taken into consideration with this graph as it shows only percentages of different groups (were n’s controlled?) and three responses to one question. I have a big problem with an n=77 in any research study. Where did that 3,146 number come from?

I am also concerned that this graph may have come from a master’s level thesis and that very few of the alleged “active climatologists” were at the PhD level.

I am an avid environmentalist. I also have problems with conclusions based on poor research. The graph shown is confusing at best and needs to be picked apart and examined before being accepted as anything indicating evidence. At this point I question the sample size and other methodology. I’m not an active climatologist. My background is in psychology research methodology. I see some red flags here.

scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/20/97-of-active-climatologists-ag/

Only if you agree with the view point of John of Woking.

 

[Farsight001]

You mean like asking Al Gore?

Pretty much, yes. Though at least in An Inconvenient Truth he was the famous face, and there were relevant scientists behind the curtain feeding him real data.

 

[wxornot]

Pretty much, yes. Though at least in An Inconvenient Truth he was the famous face, and there were relevant scientists behind the curtain feeding him real data.

You must be talking about the folks from East Anglia that leaked all those documents showing that they always took the worse case scenario rather than the consensus. I DO KNOW. I HAVE THE CONNECTIONS as a meteorologist involved in climatology. An inconvenient truth is a liberal agenda. BTW…check my Gore’s lifestyle. He makes money off of carbon credits. Typical liberal.

 

[Farsight001]

You must be talking about the folks from East Anglia that leaked all those documents showing that they always took the worse case scenario rather than the consensus. I DO KNOW. I HAVE THE CONNECTIONS as a meteorologist involved in climatology. An inconvenient truth is a liberal agenda. BTW…check my Gore’s lifestyle. He makes money off of carbon credits. Typical liberal.

East Anglia didn’t leak any documents. A hacker paid by the oil companies leaked the documents, which we now know were quite mundane documents. This has already been explained. They weren’t exaggerating anything, which you’d know if you had read through the e-mails instead of swallowing what the media fed you hook, line, and sinker.

And I know of Gore’s lifestyle. He’s a huge hypocrite. It, however, does not make the data false.

 

[wxornot]

East Anglia didn’t leak any documents. A hacker paid by the oil companies leaked the documents, which we now know were quite mundane documents. This has already been explained. They weren’t exaggerating anything, which you’d know if you had read through the e-mails instead of swallowing what the media fed you hook, line, and sinker.

And I know of Gore’s lifestyle. He’s a huge hypocrite. It, however, does not make the data false.

Baloney. The problem with AGW folks is that they refuse to look at the science in totality. Why don’t you google “growing glaciers”? That might confuse you. AGW is the biggest farce that has been perpetuated on the world in ages. But what do I know. You have a hand up on me since you are professionally involved for the last 33 years. BTW I find your claim about oil companies to be hilarious. You didn’t comment on www.icecap.us and I KNOW that is because it totally debunks the farce called AGW.

 

[Farsight001]

Baloney.

What a thoughtful response. Just call my entire post baloney, and go off on a tangent without actually addressing any of it. I expect it of anti-Catholic fundamentalists, but not around here.

The problem with AGW folks is that they refuse to look at the science in totality.

I find that extremely hard to believe considering they’re the ones collecting all of the data in totality and you deniers don’t do any experiments of your own whatsoever.

Why don’t you google “growing glaciers”? That might confuse you.

I already know about it and it doesn’t confuse me. When winter comes and its colder outside, more water freezes. Duh. Now how about YOU try and look at the totality of data and see how big glaciers and the ice caps were a thousand years ago and compare that today, instead of comparing last winter to last summer, and skipping thousands upon thousands of other data points. And you have the gall to accuse the climate scientists of ignoring data?!

AGW is the biggest farce that has been perpetuated on the world in ages. But what do I know. You have a hand up on me since you are professionally involved for the last 33 years.

BTW I find your claim about oil companies to be hilarious.

Why do you find it hilarious? It’s been public knowledge ever since “climategate” was still all over the news. Just because you don’t keep up with things doesn’t make new information hilarious.

You didn’t comment on www.icecap.us and I KNOW that is because it totally debunks the farce called AGW.

Totally debunks? Hardly. Have you visited the link? They SUPPORT global warming, believe it is real wholeheartedly, and present facts to that point. You should at least have read the “about us” section before posting the link as a defense of your position. There is nothing there for me to debunk, but a whole lot for you to address if you want to be intellectually honest with yourself.

 

[wxornot]

What a thoughtful response. Just call my entire post baloney, and go off on a tangent without actually addressing any of it. I expect it of anti-Catholic fundamentalists, but not around here.

I find that extremely hard to believe considering they’re the ones collecting all of the data in totality and you deniers don’t do any experiments of your own whatsoever.

I already know about it and it doesn’t confuse me. When winter comes and its colder outside, more water freezes. Duh. Now how about YOU try and look at the totality of data and see how big glaciers and the ice caps were a thousand years ago and compare that today, instead of comparing last winter to last summer, and skipping thousands upon thousands of other data points. And you have the gall to accuse the climate scientists of ignoring data?!

AGW is the biggest farce that has been perpetuated on the world in ages. But what do I know. You have a hand up on me since you are professionally involved for the last 33 years. Why do you find it hilarious? It’s been public knowledge ever since “climategate” was still all over the news. Just because you don’t keep up with things doesn’t make new information hilarious.

Totally debunks? Hardly. Have you visited the link? They SUPPORT global warming, believe it is real wholeheartedly, and present facts to that point. You should at least have read the “about us” section before posting the link as a defense of your position. There is nothing there for me to debunk, but a whole lot for you to address if you want to be intellectually honest with yourself.

I’m amused!!! You throw out what I post and then expect respect for the psuedo science you post. :whacky:

I’ll leave you to your devices.

God bless and stay away from ocean front property

 

[Farsight001]

I’m amused!!! You throw out what I post and then expect respect for the psuedo science you post. :whacky:

I’ll leave you to your devices.

God bless and stay away from ocean front property

You’re clearly not even reading my posts because I didn’t post science. I posted a response to what you said based on logic and reason.

 

[lynnvinc]

And I know of Gore’s lifestyle. He’s a huge hypocrite. It, however, does not make the data false.

I don’t know about Gore’s lifestyle much, except that he is rich. I wouldn’t judge him hard. If he has done something to reduce his GHGs from what he would have emitted had he NOT been concerned about AGW, that is something. We are all caught in structures of harm, the rich more than the poor.

I’m middle class, and I’ve been able to reduce about 60% since 1990, but I’m sure my GHG emissions are much higher than some poor people in some poor country who might not even be aware of the AGW issue.

We all have to do what we can, starting from where we are.

Also, if Gore is emitting GHGs thru his efforts to “get the message out,” then we’d have to do a cost-benefits on that: have those emissions been worth the result of people reducing their emissions by being inspired by Gore. And there is the indirect effect. Gore has greatly helped me from being more demoralized that I might have been without him and inspired to keep on reducing, while skeptics/denialists (such as those here on CAF) do demoralize me so that I do not reduce to the extent that I could.

To me Gore is very much a hero, and Gore-bashing and climate-scientist-bashing is a sin, just as slander is a sin. It’s always best to give people the benefit of the doubt, for the sake of God’s kingdom and also for one’s own soul.

Anti-green philosophy, with its roots in Enlightenment philosophy and privileging of “production science” (providing greater control over resources and people as workers and consumers) over “impact science” (identifying the negative impacts of science and technology), would look at Gore and climate scientists as hindrances to its notion of endless material progress. It would be looking at any way it could to downplay and smear these people and their projects.

(Just saw a segment of World Over last night, an interview of Pope Francis several months ago, in which he talked about us as consumers and how we spend much more money on non-necessities than on necessities – the highest amount on pets and the 2nd highest amount on cosmetics, while the poor of the world languish and die from poverty. I do remember hearing decades ago that costmetics was the 2nd largest industry in America…and if you look into the content of personal care products, you will find them loaded with toxins – check out your own products at ewg.org/skindeep/ and see “The Story of Cosmetics” at youtube.com/watch?v=pfq000AF1i8 )

 

[Paddy_Walker]

thankfully, the solution is inevitable. the demons called ‘fossil fuels’ are a finite resource. when they are all gone in a few hundred years the environment will revert to what it was pre-industrial age.

 

[lynnvinc]

…
Quote:
You didn’t comment on www.icecap.us and I KNOW that is because it totally debunks the farce called AGW.

Totally debunks
Totally debunks? Hardly. Have you visited the link? They SUPPORT global warming, believe it is real wholeheartedly, and present facts to that point. You should at least have read the “about us” section before posting the link as a defense of your position. There is nothing there for me to debunk, but a whole lot for you to address if you want to be intellectually honest with yourself.

Sorry to say, but that icecap site is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, full of half-truths and deception. Anyone who has developed some good knowledge of AGW will spot its deceptions, red herrings, strawmen, and outright lies (or mistakes) in an instant. However, I’m not sure if its contributors are just totally unaware of climate science and spouting disinformation unwittingly…or purposely so as to deceive, which would indicate it is striving to hold up the sagging tent of anti-green philosophy against the onslaught of reality.

From its “about” page: “We worry the sole focus on greenhouse gases and the unwise reliance on imperfect climate models while ignoring real data…”
Not only are climate models based on real data and run backwards to make sure they work correctly re real data & later checked for the accuracy of their earlier projections, but also include many variables in addition of GHGs; and furthermore climate science is based not only on computer models, but also paleoclimatology, actual real data, the laws of physics, and many other and various approaches. Proof of AGW is extremely robust at this stage, with its first studies reaching 95% confidence (.05 on the null) in 1995, and the GH effect theory being around for over 100 years.

From its “FAQs and Myths”: “CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas. Not even close. Most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, which is about 100 times as abundant in the atmosphere as CO2 and thus has a much larger effect.”
No climate scientist disputes that; however, they would point out that CO2 is a “forcing” (bec its molecules stay up in the atmosphere a very long time, a portion can stay up for 100,000years) while H2O is a “feedback” (its molecules only stay up a few hours or days). CO2 causes some slight warming, and that warming causes more H2O to evaporate & go into the atmosphere, greatly enhancing the initial warming impact of that CO2 – and also dessicating plants and soil, leading to increased drought and wildfire risk in some areas and severe deluges, blizzards, and floods in other areas, sometimes even floods during droughts.

I could waste my time addressing every single one of their deceptions, but today is the Lord’s Passion and I stand in solidarity with him and with all the victims of AGW (now and in the decades, centuries and millennia to come) and all the poor and suffering of the world. (I do understand that the skeptics and denialists are also suffering greatly in other ways, and my heart goes out to them too.)

---

My suggestion here would be to strive to understand that climate is not weather, but the aggregate of weather.

Think of 3 levels, the micro-level of local and short-term weather; the meso-level of regional and longer term patterns that impact local weather, such as el ninos and arctic oscillations; and the macro-level of climate that is the statistical aggregate of weather over the long term and the whole world. These different levels operate by different principles (tho they impact one another). The laws that govern climate are different fromt he laws that govern local, short-term weather. A meteorologist needs to understand the latter, and the best ones need to understand the meso-level of el ninos, etc. However, meterologists do not need to understand (and I do not think they have been educated in) climate – which is very stable and not really a variable in weather, but rather a constant that can for the most part be deleted from the dynamic equation. For instance, I have a 1970 atlas with a climate map that is still pretty good at telling me about the climates around the world, tho the planting zones have shifted a bit northward due to global warming.

Education in meteorology does not indicate the person is educated in climatology. There are a number of meteorologists, nuclear physicists, astrophysicists, dentists, statisticians, geologists, medical doctors, and philosophers who are anthropogenic climates change skeptics and denialists. That means absolutely nothing at all. It either indicates they are uneducated in climatology or have bought hard into anti-green philosophy, which blinds them to and prevents them from even seeking the truth.

 

[lynnvinc]

thankfully, the solution is inevitable. the demons called ‘fossil fuels’ are a finite resource. when they are all gone in a few hundred years the environment will revert to what it was pre-industrial age.

Unfortunately, that probably will not be the case, since our initial warming can trigger vast carbon releases from melting permafrost and ocean hydrates – as has happened in past great warming when most of life was wiped out, such as 55 mill yrs ago. Only this time we are causing the initial warming much faster, and the “methane” shootgun is much more fully loaded, and solar irradiance has increased…on the sun’s way to self-destruction in billions of years. We could actually trigger runaway warming and wipe out all of life on planet earth, according to top NASA climate scientist, James Hansen – from pg 24 of columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf :

There may have been times in the Earth’s history when CO2 was as high as 4000 ppm without causing a runaway greenhouse effect. But the solar irradiance was less at that time.

What is different about the human-made forcing is the rapidity at which we are increasing it, on the time scale of a century or a few centuries. It does not provide enough time for negative feedbacks, such as changes in the weathering rate, to be a major factor.

There is also a danger that humans could cause the release of methane hydrates, perhaps more rapidly than in some of the cases in the geologic record.

In my opinion, if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect [and end all life on earth]. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale (a.k.a. oil shale), I think it is a dead certainty.

The release of such methane from melting permafrost and ocean hydrates is already beginning to increase (see sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121127094250.htm ). Considering that it would take a long time for people to implement measures to reduce their GHG emissions (it took us 22 years to reduce 60% below our 1990 emissions, and we still have many things to do), the situation does not look hopeful for life on earth. If at least Catholics had only followed JPII’s admonishment back in 1990 that everyone should mitigate climate change, things would have been a lot better now.

I pray that people, at least Catholics, can find it in their hearts to turn off lights not in use and whatever else they can do to help solve this problem, at least in ways that save them money or do not cost them in the short or long run. I do not expect anyone to sacrifice anything (as Pope Francis does expect of us rich people), but only to do things in ways that reduce harm to others without any sacrifice to oneself.

I also think the anti-green (anti-life) philosophy is very harmful to the soul and has insinuated itself into some perverse religious thinking in modern society.

 

[Paddy_Walker]

Unfortunately, that probably will not be the case, since our initial warming can trigger vast carbon releases from melting permafrost and ocean hydrates – as has happened in past great warming when most of life was wiped out, such as 55 mill yrs ago. Only this time we are causing the initial warming much faster, and the “methane” shootgun is much more fully loaded, and solar irradiance has increased…on the sun’s way to self-destruction in billions of years. We could actually trigger runaway warming and wipe out all of life on planet earth, according to top NASA climate scientist, James Hansen – from pg 24 of columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf :
…

you should read this carefully;

Climate models predict that the temperature increase in the Arctic over the next century will continue to be about twice the global average temperature increase. By the end of the 21st century, the annual average temperature in the Arctic is predicted to increase by 2.8 to 7.8 °C (5.0 to 14.0 °F), with more warming in winter (4.3 to 11.4 °C; 7.7 to 20.5 °F) than in summer (IPCC 2007). Decreases in sea-ice extent and thickness are expected to continue over the next century, with some models predicting the Arctic Ocean will be free of sea ice in late summer by the mid to late part of the century (IPCC 2007).
A study published in the journal Science in September 2009 determined that temperatures in the Arctic are higher presently than they have been at any time in the previous 2,000 years.[2] Samples from ice cores, tree rings and lake sediments from 23 sites were used by the team, led by Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University, to provide snapshots of the changing climate.[3] Geologists were able to track the summer Arctic temperatures as far back as the time of the Romans by studying natural signals in the landscape.[4] The results highlighted that for around 1,900 years temperatures steadily dropped, caused by precession of earth’s orbit that caused the planet to be slightly farther away from the sun during summer in the Northern Hemisphere.[2][3] These orbital changes led to a cold period known as the little ice age during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.[2][3] However, during the last 100 years temperatures have been rising, despite the fact that the continued changes in earth’s orbit would have driven further cooling.[2][3][5] The largest rises have occurred since 1950, with four of the five warmest decades in the last 2,000 years occurring between 1950 and 2000.[2] The last decade was the warmest in the record.[6]
from, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_the_Arctic

note, climate models predicting the Arctic Ocean will be free of sea ice in late summer by the mid to late part of the century (IPCC 2007).

so in 37 years there will be no sea-ice in the arctic circle. thats not so long to wait and see.

The results highlighted that for around 1,900 years temperatures steadily dropped…

but it is not true, is it, temperatures rose during the early and late medieval period and then fell after the medieval period only to rise again after the little ice-age.

caused by precession of earth’s orbit that caused the planet to be slightly farther away from the sun during summer in the Northern Hemisphere.[2][3] These orbital changes led to a cold period known as the little ice age during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.[2][3] However, during the last 100 years temperatures have been rising, despite the fact that the continued changes in earth’s orbit would have driven further cooling.

again, with this is a problem. the implication is that the industrial-age has powered the rise in global temperatures in spite of the fact that the earth is cooling due to it moving away from the sun caused by precession of earth’s orbit.

but, what caused the temperatures to rise to todays values during the medieval-warm period, pre-industrial-age.

that question needs to be answered. there is no reason to suppose we are not at the peak of another natural warm cycle.

the important thing climate scientists should be looking at, i think, is what causes these natural cycles of warming and cooling.

 

[lynnvinc]

…but, what caused the temperatures to rise to todays values during the medieval-warm period, pre-industrial-age.

that question needs to be answered. there is no reason to suppose we are not at the peak of another natural warm cycle.

the important thing climate scientists should be looking at, i think, is what causes these natural cycles of warming and cooling.

There are many factors, of which climate scientists are well aware, that cause initial cooling and warming of the earth’s climate, often with GHG emissions from nature following as a positive feedback.

I’ve read the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was more a N. Atlantic/N.Europe regional phenomena than a global one, but even if it were global, as I mentioned it would have been due to some cause, not just by fluke, and it indicates there can indeed be warming, so it gives support to the fact that we are indeed now experiencing global warming.

In our case now scientists have found that the warming is largely due to industrial GHG emissions (they’ve looked at all other possible factors, but that is the one one that explains it). Eventually the carbon releases from melting permafrost and ocean hydrates could become the larger factor. It’s sort of like we are poking a sleeping dragon.

Also, tho I don’t think the MWP was as warm as today – they say we’ve surpassed it – we are just at the beginning of our current warming period, and they project there could be 6C warming by 2100 or some decades after. That was the level of great warming during the end-Permian extinction when 95% of life on earth died.

Re the return of an ice age, I wouldn’t worry about that. Even if it were so, it would take 1000s of years to come about. However, climate scientists are saying that earth will likely never go into an ice age again due to our current human-caused warming (with the arctic methane shotgun about to be discharged), and considering the sun has been slowly increasing in irradiance since its birth.

In a way we are in uncharted, new territory, and as Christians it behooves us to act with prudence and mitigate this problem, rather than allowing it to possibly go out of control and perhaps cause tremendous harms.

That’s my position. I’m conservative by nature and we have insurance for everything. I was a Girl Scout & also a “Senior Lifesaver” (water safety & rescue) and had it ingrained in me to be prepared and take all sorts of safety precautions. I realize that stance is not popular in our our risk-taking, entrepreneurial, gambling, adventuresome culture…which is part of the anti-green, Enlightenment-rooted philosophy. I’ve always been against this culture of risk and death (I even hate circuses), an outsider in my own land. Others have to follow their own hearts and natures in this matter. I would hope, though, that even if they risk their own wealth and lives, they would choose life and precautions re life-issues, and not risk others’ wealth and lives.

 

[GEddie]

I rather doubt that we are now warmer than in the Mediaeval Warm, given that during that era the Norsemen farmed Greenland, and no-one is doing that now.

ICXC NIKA