Catholicism and Climate Change

[Monte_RCMS]

Until about 10,000 years ago, the Sahara Desert was a well watered savannah plain with tremendous amounts of wildlife. Even hippopotamuses. Which like water.

And then … suddenly … about 10,000 years ago, it all changed within a very short period of time … within perhaps one person’s lifetime.

And the changed angle of the Earth’s axis or whatever the reason was, gave us the Sahara Desert that we all know now.

And the presence of humans had nothing to do with it.

The point being that the Earth is capable of having its climate changed quite naturally … and nothing that man does can prevent the change or mitigate it or hasten the change.

[Perhaps some people would refer to what happened to north-central Africa for 10.000 years as “weather”.]

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Actually, no - It was not used to disprove AGW. It is used to disprove this claim

**
Mr. Gore**

CAN you prove it wrong ? it matters not where it came from or who authored it .

1st off, I think you will find that I’m well prepared to debate AGW. Not some unsuspecting soul. The hypothesis of AGW stands or falls on it’s own merits.

I have taken almost every one of your misinformed statements and claims… and proved otherwise.

HMMMmmm you seem bent on calling names and associations. So with it being fair game:

Let’s look at just part of the funders of CRU - You know, the folks that feed this AGW hypothesis.

cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

I hate to break it to you - but if the receding glaciers show AGW - what do the growing Glaciers show? there are far many more growing than retreating - take the 200+ in western Himalayas Or the thousands growing throughout the world. PS the IPCC gives credit to the Himalayas melting scare to WWF.
theaustralian.com.au/news/united-nations-blunder-on-glaciers-exposed/story-e6frg6n6-1225820614171

Science demands ALL variables be validated - Not "cherry picked ".

AND THEN, there are the people who see a movie of a glacier calving and claim it is melting. When, in fact, when you see the pieces break off into the ocean, known as calving, the glacier is GROWING, not melting.

 

[Calliso]

As I and Calliso have mentioned here, glaciers are impacted by many factors – not just warming. For instance, precipitation, which can come down as snow. In a globally warming world, there will be more water vapor evaporated from water bodies into the atmosphere. In cold places (high latitudes and high mountains) this will likely come down as snow. Yes, there is expected some glaciers increasing in mass during the early decades of AGW maybe up to 2100 due to this, and some decreasing more due to the warming. However, if you look at the total glacial mass around the world, it is decreasing.

There are additional factors, as well, such as black soot, which causes more melting than just from the warming.

Here’s a site that might help in understanding glaciers and changes happening: geo.unizh.ch/wgms/, and an update about world glaciers by Mauri Pelto, a glaciologist, at realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/a-global-glacier-index-update/, and a report on changes in world glaciers atgrid.unep.ch/glaciers/pdfs/glaciers.pdf.

Here’s an article I’m citing in a paper I’m writing: Kehrwald, N. M., L. G. Thompson, Y. Tandong, E. Mosley-Thompson, U. Schotterer, V. Alfimov, J. Beer, J. Eikenberg, and M. E. Davis. 2008. “Mass Loss on Himalayan Glacier Endangers Water Resources.” Geophysical Research Letters 35: L22503; online here.

I could spend the entire day looking up sources for you, but I hope these help.

Well first I found this rather amusing picture. tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/glaciers.jpg?w=500&h=295 helps illustrate the point of how skeptics like to talk about the small amount of growing glaciers but like to completely ignore the fact that most are shrinking! But what skeptics/denalists need to do is ask themselves why and do research. Not just claim hey look growing glaciers lets ignore the fact that most are shrinking and focus on the handful that donlt cause surely that disproves global warming! Its like the whole Antartic sea ice growing thing. I know I have seen that used as a argument that there is cooling around antartica and or no global warming. skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm but of course that isn;t the case. The point is instead of screaming global warming must be false! when they find a few examples that seem to contradict it skeptics should ask themselves why these things occur.

 

[kimmielittle]

Well first I found this rather amusing picture. tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/glaciers.jpg?w=500&h=295 helps illustrate the point of how skeptics like to talk about the small amount of growing glaciers but like to completely ignore the fact that most are shrinking! But what skeptics/denalists need to do is ask themselves why and do research. Not just claim hey look growing glaciers lets ignore the fact that most are shrinking and focus on the handful that donlt cause surely that disproves global warming! Its like the whole Antartic sea ice growing thing. I know I have seen that used as a argument that there is cooling around antartica and or no global warming. skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm but of course that isn;t the case. The point is instead of screaming global warming must be false! when they find a few examples that seem to contradict it skeptics should ask themselves why these things occur.

Actually, you are again wrong.

No one, that I’ve seen here, Is Challenging NATURAL Climate Change

We are challenging the Alarmist hyperbole presented on the hypothesis of AGW.

We are challenging falsehoods promoted by these AGW Alarmists.

We are challenging the ** Means ** used to so - call ]“prove” this hypothesis.

We are challenging the deceptive practices that brought AGW upon us.

We are challenging the ROLES of certain eco-terrorist groups within the AGW community.

We are challenging the teaching of kids false information to promote an agenda.

We are challenging the need for transparency in order that raw data gets held - AND shared.

We are challenging the thoughts that such raw data belongs to a person - when that person is paid by governments - tax payers.

We are challenging the schemes of Cap and Trade…Carbon Credits - Population control as being ethical - moral or even addressing Natural Climate Change.

We are challenging Panels which are supposed to present factual evidence - to indeed, provide factual evidence

We are challenging the environmentalist to purge themselves of narcissistic entities.

We are challenging our Governments to set standards and enforce them - Such as Freedom Of Information, accountability, statistical standards… etc

My personal challenge would for you AGW’er Alarmist to use sources not tied to CRU, Mr. Hansen , Mr Gore, RealClimate, Wikipedia, IPCC, septicalscience. etc try broadening your knowledge not be a puppet.

 

[Ender]

Its like the whole Antartic sea ice growing thing. I know I have seen that used as a argument that there is cooling around antartica and or no global warming. skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm but of course that isn;t the case. The point is instead of screaming global warming must be false! when they find a few examples that seem to contradict it skeptics should ask themselves why these things occur.

I think this is a perfect example of the way this debate has been held. The simple fact of the loss of sea ice in the Arctic is presented as a clear, vivid example of the effects of global warming yet when it is pointed out that sea ice in the Antarctic is growing and, worldwide, the sea ice extent is the same now as it was in 1979, the focus changes and all sorts of reasons are proposed to explain why ice in Antarctica is misbehaving. Not one word, however, is offered to explain why sea ice in the Arctic has been diminishing, for which there are several contributors having nothing to do with warming. Everything said about Antarctica may well be true but there is nothing honest about the way the information is being presented when AGW pushers go out of their way to avoid an apples to apples comparison. For me this question remains unanswered: if AGW is true then why is there so much duplicity involved in proving it?

Ender

 

[kimmielittle]

In the context of GW, as I’ve stated several times: decreasing glacial mass shows that there is net melting going on due to the warming. In the rarer cases of increasing glacial mass, that shows that the heavier precipitation expected in a GW world is causing more snow to fall on the glaciers, outpacing the melting, with a net increase in glacial mass.

Sorry, I’ve got to get to work, so I won’t be able to answer Qs for a while…

But climate science and glaciology ARE fascinating fields, and I’m glad you and others are interested in learning about them. You might do better, however, to read what the scientists say, or contact them directly and ask Qs. They’ve been quite gracious in answering my lame questions over the past 10 years…

Here is another tactic, I’m almost positive you got this trick from sources as RealScience ]. You see, they thought incorrectly ] that changing from using terms like AGW - Anthropogenic Global Warming - Man Made Global Warming… AND use terms as GW - Global Warming - Climate Change…THAT it would make their agendas / schemes… somehow, more palliative. You can paint a Zebra all day long…it’s still a Zebra…ALL the paint in the world doesn’t changes it’s heart - And the heart to AGW is diseased

Question
Do you know why they won’'t refer to it as Natural Climate Change?

Hint: You can’t tax Nature…You can’t attempt a power shift - or shift money with Nature.

Their refusal to call it, Natural Climate Change - Speaks Volumes

I know where their heart lies…If you agree with them… call it AGW

Personally, I use the term VOGGW for AGW Void Of God Global Warming }

 

[kimmielittle]

I think this is a perfect example of the way this debate has been held. The simple fact of the loss of sea ice in the Arctic is presented as a clear, vivid example of the effects of global warming yet when it is pointed out that sea ice in the Antarctic is growing and, worldwide, the sea ice extent is the same now as it was in 1979, the focus changes and all sorts of reasons are proposed to explain why ice in Antarctica is misbehaving. Not one word, however, is offered to explain why sea ice in the Arctic has been diminishing, for which there are several contributors having nothing to do with warming. Everything said about Antarctica may well be true but there is nothing honest about the way the information is being presented when AGW pushers go out of their way to avoid an apples to apples comparison. For me this question remains unanswered: if AGW is true then why is there so much duplicity involved in proving it?

Ender

I have found no one, who debates for AGW who doesn’t avoid the apples to apples OR the really HARD Questions ie…Show me 1 degree change made by Cap and Trade - Carbon Credits - Population Control schemes, offered as"Solutions".

I have shown, using AGWers own figures, at 83% reduction of CO2, per year, in the USA One of the largest contributors of CO2 ] a decrease of LESS than THREE- THOUSANDTHS of 1 C, per year. If say China and the UK also achieved 83% reduction using US emissions rates ] - it would still be less than NINE-THOUSANDTHS of 1C per year.

 

[kimmielittle]

AND THEN, there are the people who see a movie of a glacier calving and claim it is melting. When, in fact, when you see the pieces break off into the ocean, known as calving, the glacier is GROWING, not melting.

The word “calving” means to separate from the Mother…as in birth. Cows do it Whales do it

 

[kimmielittle]

Another AGW leader heard from

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
– Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund

I have many more

 

[kimmielittle]

Well first I found this rather amusing picture. tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/glaciers.jpg?w=500&h=295 helps illustrate the point of how skeptics like to talk about the small amount of growing glaciers but like to completely ignore the fact that most are shrinking!

80 are listed as receding, if I’m not wrong.

 

[Ender]

Well first I found this rather amusing picture. tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/glaciers.jpg?w=500&h=295 helps illustrate the point of how skeptics like to talk about the small amount of growing glaciers but like to completely ignore the fact that most are shrinking!

So what? What would it demonstrate if all the glaciers in the world were shrinking - that the Earth is getting warmer? I’m pretty sure there isn’t too much debate over this point (although the amount of warming is definitely debatable). The question is not whether the Earth is warming but what is causing it and the fact that glaciers are shrinking provides no information whatever in answer to that question. Nor is there information provided by any other fact indicating that the Earth is warming, not sea ice in the Arctic or the spread of disease vectors. These “facts”, even if they were true, are irrelevant to the only question that matters: what caused global temperatures to rise?

Ender

 

[kimmielittle]

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
– David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

 

[kimmielittle]

So what? What would it demonstrate if all the glaciers in the world were shrinking - that the Earth is getting warmer? I’m pretty sure there isn’t too much debate over this point (although the amount of warming is definitely debatable). The question is not whether the Earth is warming but what is causing it and the fact that glaciers are shrinking provides no information whatever in answer to that question. Nor is there information provided by any other fact indicating that the Earth is warming, not sea ice in the Arctic or the spread of disease vectors. These “facts”, even if they were true, are irrelevant to the only question that matters: what caused global temperatures to rise?

Ender

ABSOLUTELY

But I do challenge statements like this - just on the wording. Bolding mine ].

  			Originally Posted by **Calliso** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6957223#post6957223) 				
  		*Well first I found this rather amusing picture. [tamino.files.wordpress.com/20...pg?w=500&h=295](http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/glaciers.jpg?w=500&h=295)* helps illustrate the point of how skeptics like to talk about the small amount of growing glaciers **but like to completely ignore the fact that most are shrinking!**

If approximately 80 Glaciers are listed as receding - And there is over 100,000 known Glaciers? With over 200 listed as growing?

Where does " Most are shrinking" come from?

 

[kimmielittle]

Admissions of The former director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at Britain’s University of East Anglia, admitted to the BBC last Saturday that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995, and that the world may have been warmer during medieval times. In the interview (bit.ly/bv1fec), professor Phil Jones, a former lead author on the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001 assessment report and outspoken proponent of the man-made-global-warming theory, confessed to the following:

There was no statistically significant global warming from 1995 to 2009. (Although temperatures edged up at a rate of 0.12 Celsius per decade during that period, it was not significant, according to Jones.)

From January 2002 to the present, the earth has been cooling. (Jones said the temperature decline is “not statistically significant,” while failing to mention that the falling temperatures contradict the IPPC model, which forecast a temperature increase of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade.

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from 800 to 1300 A.D., did exist, a scientifically accepted fact that Jones and other climate researchers tried to discount or hide. According to Jones: If the Medieval Warm Period “was shown to be global in extent and as warm as or warmer than today . . . then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented . . . .(Jones, however, clings to the belief that the MWP may not have been global and may have affected only parts of the North America, the North Atlantic, Europe and parts of Asia.)

NOTE: The problem, here is, as I’ve stated before, If you use the SAME AREA LANDMASS ] to prove AGW, You can not ignore MWP…Unless, you also ignore ALL of these Landmasses.

IT was / IS part of Climatic Global History.

**The warming rates for the periods 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940 and 1975 to 1998 “are not statistically significantly different.” **In other words, none of these warm periods – early and recent – is exceptional or unusual. (Even if the recent warming had been “statistically significantly different,” it would not implicate CO2 emissions as the cause.)

“They’ve finally admitted that the current warming period is similar to previous warming periods. Congratulations, we’ve known that for a long time,” says Michael Smith, a software engineer who played a key role in exposing the manipulation of global temperature data by NASA and NOAA.

 

[lynnvinc]

Than you deny this chart?
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/goreerrors/15.gif

I put that chart on RealClimate.org and got this interesting response from an AGW skeptic (like you), known for critiquing nearly everything on RC – comment #384 at realclimate.org/?comments_popup=4704#comment-184491#comment-184491:

1. … as a skeptic I’m probably incented to read into the graph what you read and what the graph asserts. But, while I did not do any rigorous statistical graphical analysis, I can not see anything in the chart that points to hydrocarbon use not being a factor in glacial shortening. Even though the chart picks a somewhat late date for the start HOC use increase, and as much as I would prefer to believe them, to the unaided eye it sure looks like glacial shortening is right in lockstep with HOC use. Maybe it is not the whole answer (and I believe it is not), but how they got the negative answer is boggling.

Comment by Rod B — 15 August 2010 @ 4:35 PM

So he doubts the graph because to him it lends support to AGW.

 

[kimmielittle]

I put that chart on RealClimate.org and got this interesting response from an AGW skeptic (like you), known for critiquing nearly everything on RC – comment #384 at realclimate.org/?comments_popup=4704#comment-184491#comment-184491:
384. … as a skeptic I’m probably incented to read into the graph what you read and what the graph asserts. But, while I did not do any rigorous statistical graphical analysis, I can not see anything in the chart that points to hydrocarbon use not being a factor in glacial shortening. Even though the chart picks a somewhat late date for the start HOC use increase, and as much as I would prefer to believe them, to the unaided eye it sure looks like glacial shortening is right in lockstep with HOC use. Maybe it is not the whole answer (and I believe it is not), but how they got the negative answer is boggling.

Comment by Rod B — 15 August 2010 @ 4:35 PMSo he doubts the graph because to him it lends support to AGW.

Sooooo…you now have changed your mind again and think the graph supports AGW?

 

[kimmielittle]

Okay, I admit, I was going to wait for your answer and slam you.

If you noticed, throughout this thread, I haven’t defended this graph. As a fact, I even agreed that it should be thrown out, if proven that it was manipulated - along with ALL other proven manipulated graphs.

The history of this graph, as was presented to my class - was presented the same to you.

We were told only that the graph was part of the court evidence against Mr. Gore’s claims that “CO2 caused Glacier melts”

In other words, the graph was shown, just as to you, and the question was the same. Do you deny this graph?

Approximately, one half the class agreed it showed AGW CO2 wasn’t responsible - The other half of the class said it proved AGW CO2 was responsible.

ALL but 1 class member received “C” grades. 1 class member received an “A” Grade.

That1 class member said " That without the raw data / evidence presented with the graph, the graph could be interrupted either way." " That the graph alone could prove neither CO2 caused, or didn’t cause, Glacier melts" “That this is the exact same problem using models in support of AGW - without having the raw data available.” " That graphs are made by subjective (name removed by moderator)ut and without knowing what (name removed by moderator)ut was used, the graph can neither support, or disprove, AGW CO2 as cause-effect relartionship to glacier melt"

Your friend Rob B, is on the correct path. We DO NOT know the raw data, that made up this graph. We DO KNOW, that on apperance alone - questions arise.

THOSE QUESTIONS can not be answered without the raw data. The same with IPCC - CRU graphs presented without the raw data to support their graphs.

 

[kimmielittle]

AGW bedfellows

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund

 

[lynnvinc]

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
– David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

…which is why Catholics and good Christians, and good, sensible folks of all religions need to get involved in the environmental movement, so it won’t be hijacked by extremists.

Here is my style of environmentalism:
THE LITTLE WAY OF
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALING

We are faced with enormous environmental problems that kill people, and destroy property and wildlife. Everyone needs to help solve these.

St. Therese of the Child Jesus teaches us the Little Way of Spiritual Childhood. She felt she could not perform the big mortifications of the saints. We also feel we cannot go back to a lifestyle without cars and modern conveniences.

St. Therese, though, was determined to become a saint. She read, “Whoever does not accept the kingdom of God as a little child will not enter into it.” Following this, St. Therese in childlike simplicity offered God all of her small deeds of ordinary life, and placed all her trust in God to help her scale the cliffs of perfection and avoid temptations. This is the Little Way. “Not everyone can fast, or wear hair shirts, or spend hours in prayer,” she used to say, “but everyone can love!” One thing alone is needful: all must be done for love of God.

What is needed to solve the big environmental problems is a life of many small deeds done out of love for God. We need to offer many small prayers to help us understand the problems and find solutions, and then more prayers to carry out our actions in daily life.

We need faith that our small deeds will, with God’s grace, amount to more than a meaningless drop in the bucket, letting Jesus multiply our fish & loaves; Mother Teresa said our love makes our small deeds infinite. We need hope that we will one day be rejoicing with God in heaven, so we need not be too concerned with worldly riches, comforts, and status. We need the charity of joyfully sharing God’s bounty and beauty with others around the world and in the future by helping to save the Earth.

I invite all to join me in mitigating environmental problems in loving and sensible ways, so as to reduce our harms to future generations. That’s all I ask.

 

[kimmielittle]

“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
– Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
– Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC