Pell not of Vatican faith on climate

[markomalley]

From the Sydney Morning Herald we have this article with its deceptive headline…

A DIRE warning about the need to mitigate man-made global warning from a Vatican-appointed panel of scientists has not yet convinced Australia’s highest-ranking Catholic, who said the causes of climate change were ‘‘unclear’’.

The Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, said he would study the document carefully but questioned the effectiveness of any action.

‘‘Climate change is real. The causes are unclear, and our ability to influence climate change [is] even less certain,’’ he said.
The more I hear about Card. Pell, the more I like him.

 

[po18guy]

Entirely reasonable. Any group of scientists, no matter appointed by whom, do not define the truth, but only hypothesize, given currently available evidence. In any event, the term “Vatican faith” is grossly misleading, when used in this context. This is not a matter of faith or morals, but of scientific study.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

MY scientists are better than YOUR scientists.Faulty science designed to implement the world wide socialism,personal control and enforced population control that Marxism failed to do.I really could care less what the “Vatican” thinks about it (whoever they are) or the Pope-he is not impeccable only infallible in the most narrow of terms.More nuisance media divisiveness as the Aussie MSM HATE Pell and he probably will be Pope someday.

The sky is falling.Just too bad the weather won’t cooperate with their bogus and agendaed theories.Those ice fields in the Andes that were suppoded to be shrinking are actually growing.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Entirely reasonable. Any group of scientists, no matter appointed by whom, do not define the truth, but only hypothesize, given currently available evidence. In any event, the term “Vatican faith” is grossly misleading, when used in this context. This is not a matter of faith or morals, but of scientific study.

 

[sedonaman]

The Space and Science Research Center [SSRC] announces today [Jan. 25, 2011] that the most recent data from NASA describing the unusual behavior of the Sun validates a nearly four year long quest by SSRC Director John L. Casey to convince the US government, the media, and the public that we are heading into a new cold climate era with 20 to 30 years of record setting cold weather.

… It [SSRC] has become the leading research organization in the United States on the subject of the science and planning for the next climate change to a long lasting cold era especially with regard to alerting the government, the media, and the people of the need to prepare for this new climate era.

In addition to the cold weather of this new climate era, the SSRC also believes along with other scientists and geologists, that there is strong likelihood of record volcanic eruptions and earthquakes that will take place during this next climate change. All of these predicted events are the result of the recently started ‘solar hibernation,’ a dramatic reduction in the energy output of the Sun. …

Press Release 2-2011 “Global Cooling Begins…with Record Drop in Temperatures”

Unquote
spaceandscience.net/id69.html

 

[po18guy]

The Space and Science Research Center [SSRC] announces today [Jan. 25, 2011] that the most recent data from NASA describing the unusual behavior of the Sun validates a nearly four year long quest by SSRC Director John L. Casey to convince the US government, the media, and the public that we are heading into a new cold climate era with 20 to 30 years of record setting cold weather.

Unquote
spaceandscience.net/id69.html

Al Gore also lost his publicly funded pulpit. Coincidence? :ehh:

 

[laszlo]

The sky is falling.Just too bad the weather won’t cooperate with their bogus and agendaed theories.Those ice fields in the Andes that were suppoded to be shrinking are actually growing.

This was expected and predicted 10 years ago. The melting of the arctic ice makes significant cooling, so in particular places the climate is cooling for the next 8-10 years. (May be 2 is over already)

You must see the whole Earth as a system. The scary is that still people use the local facts to deny that the negligence toward the environment is catastrophic. Probably too late to do anything.

Meditate on Jeremias. He was the prophet of the hopelessness.

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

This was expected and predicted 10 years ago. The melting of the arctic ice makes significant cooling, so in particular places the climate is cooling for the next 8-10 years. (May be 2 is over already)

You must see the whole Earth as a system. The scary is that still people use the local facts to deny that the negligence toward the environment is catastrophic. Probably too late to do anything.

Meditate on Jeremias. He was the prophet of the hopelessness.

If its cold its global warming.If its hot its global warming.If it rains…tornados…hurricanes…PLEASE.Stop beating a dead horse.The Emperor is stark naked.We have had FIVE ice ages in the last 500,000 years all caused by radiation from the sun or lack of-same thing is happening right now.Remember why they called Greenland,Greenland-they could grow grapes.In the 1800s the climate in Britain was so cold their giant rivers froze.

PLEASE no more Chicken Littleism-the majority realizes it is a scheme like communism to stengthen govt control over Joe Blow and redistribute wealth.PERIOD.

Remember Acid Rain from 30 years ago?THE SKY IS FALLING!!!THe energy “Shortage” from 30 years ago?THE SKY IS FALLING!!!Canada and the USA have enough oil and gas to run our economies for 500 years.If you believe an alternative energy form has not already been developed then I’ll sell you the CN Tower for 500 bucks.

 

[po18guy]

If its cold its global warming.If its hot its global warming.If it rains…tornados…hurricanes…PLEASE.Stop beating a dead horse.The Emperor is stark naked.We have had FIVE ice ages in the last 500,000 years all caused by radiation from the sun or lack of-same thing is happening right now.Remember why they called Greenland,Greenland-they could grow grapes.In the 1800s the climate in Britain was so cold their giant rivers froze.

PLEASE no more Chicken Littleism-the majority realizes it is a scheme like communism to stengthen govt control over Joe Blow and redistribute wealth.PERIOD.

Remember Acid Rain from 30 years ago?THE SKY IS FALLING!!!THe energy “Shortage” from 30 years ago?THE SKY IS FALLING!!!Canada and the USA have enough oil and gas to run our economies for 500 years.If you believe an alternative energy form has not already been developed then I’ll sell you the CN Tower for 500 bucks.

Very well, if somehwat heatedly, said

Simply put, the Church is surrounded by secular pressure. Each time she opens her doors, a little bit of the world creeps in. From time to time, the house must be cleaned.

 

[po18guy]

Does no one here remember one of the best scientific best-sellers of 1970-71? The Coming Ice Age. It was based on the best available scientific information, too.

 

[laszlo]

If its cold its global warming.If its hot its global warming.If it rains…tornados…hurricanes…

The questions what you have to ask:

1./ What is the consequence, if the arctic ice is melting?

2./ Did the arctic ice melted singificantly, or not?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Arctic ice extent fluctuates with the seasons and the satellite data shows all of the years for which satellite data are available all fall in the same narrow band.

In other words, Arctic ice extent is behaving normally.

In addition, very recent research shows that cosmic rays have a much more pronounced impact on climate than anyone had ever envisioned … pity that the computer models don’t have an entry for cosmic rays.

[P.S. … the data on cosmic rays … is “out there”. ]

 

[katy]

Does no one here remember one of the best scientific best-sellers of 1970-71? The Coming Ice Age. It was based on the best available scientific information, too.

Me, for one. And there was also The Population Bomb, a Malthusian classic, and also wrong. When are people going to pick up on this?

 

[po18guy]

Me, for one. And there was also The Population Bomb, a Malthusian classic, and also wrong. When are people going to pick up on this?

They are driving full speed into a fog, with the resultant chaos that it brings. They do not desire to rise above it and gain the long view, which is much more comforting (but involves much less need for governmental taxation and policy setting).

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challengedWhen politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Man produces greenhouse gases and greenhouse gases cause global warming, most scientists agree, but how, exactly, do greenhouse gases cause global warming? While theories abound, as do elaborate computer models incorporating a multitude of gases and other climatic factors, none has been conclusive. And if greenhouse gases aren’t responsible, what else could be? A clear, verifiable mechanism showing how a greenhouse gas or other physical entity can drive climate change has eluded science. Until now.

For more than a decade, Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center has been pursuing an explanation for why Earth cools and warms. His findings – published in October in the Proceedings of the Royal Society – the mathematical, physical sciences and engineering journal of the Royal Society of London – are now in, and they don’t point to us. The sun and the stars could explain most if not all of the warming this century, and he has laboratory results to demonstrate it. Dr. Svensmark’s study had its origins in 1996, when he and a colleague presented findings at a scientific conference indicating that changes in the sun’s magnetic field – quite apart from greenhouse gases – could be related to the recent rise in global temperatures. The chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change, the chief agency investigating global warming, then castigated them in the press, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” Others accused them of denouncing the greenhouse theory, something they had not done.

The series

Statistics needed – The Deniers Part I
Warming is real – and has benefits – The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science – The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice – The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold – The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change – The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? – The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability – The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming – The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 – the Deniers Part X

Svensmark and his colleague had arrived at their theory after examining data that showed a surprisingly strong correlation between cosmic rays --highspeed atomic particles originating in exploded stars in the Milky Way – and low-altitude clouds. Earth’s cloud cover increased when the intensity of cosmic rays grew and decreased when the intensity declined.

nationalpost.com/story.html?id=fee9a01f-3627-4b01-9222-bf60aa332f1f&k=0

 

[JimG]

OK, I can’t resist linking to this article from First Things magazine:
The Truth About Greenhouse Gases

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

Causes of Climate Change

Figure 7y-1 illustrates the basic components that influence the state of the Earth’s climatic system. Changes in the state of this system can occur externally (from extraterrestrial systems) or internally (from ocean, atmosphere and land systems) through any one of the described components. For example, an external change may involve a variation in the Sun’s output which would externally vary the amount of solar radiation received by the Earth’s atmosphere and surface. Internal variations in the Earth’s climatic system may be caused by changes in the concentrations of atmospheric gases, mountain building, volcanic activity, and changes in surface or atmospheric albedo.

Figure 7y-1: Factors that influence the Earth’s climate.

The work of climatologists has found evidence to suggest that only a limited number of factors are primarily responsible for most of the past episodes of climate change on the Earth. These factors include:

Variations in the Earth’s orbital characteristics.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide variations.
Volcanic eruptions
Variations in solar output.

Variations in the Earth’s Orbital Characteristics

The Milankovitch theory suggests that normal cyclical variations in three of the Earth’s orbital characteristics is probably responsible for some past climatic change. The basic idea behind this theory assumes that over time these three cyclic events vary the amount of solar radiation that is received on the Earth’s surface.

The first cyclical variation, known as eccentricity, controls the shape of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. The orbit gradually changes from being elliptical to being nearly circular and then back to elliptical in a period of about 100,000 years. The greater the eccentricity of the orbit (i.e., the more elliptical it is), the greater the variation in solar energy received at the top of the atmosphere between the Earth’s closest (perihelion) and farthest (aphelion) approach to the Sun. Currently, the Earth is experiencing a period of low eccentricity. The difference in the Earth’s distance from the Sun between perihelion and aphelion (which is only about 3%) is responsible for approximately a 7% variation in the amount of solar energy received at the top of the atmosphere. When the difference in this distance is at its maximum (9%), the difference in solar energy received is about 20%.

The second cyclical variation results from the fact that, as the Earth rotates on its polar axis, it wobbles like a spinning top changing the orbital timing of the equinoxes and solstices (see Figure 7y-2 below). This effect is known as the precession of the equinox. The precession of the equinox has a cycle of approximately 26,000 years. According to illustration A, the Earth is closer to the Sun in January (perihelion) and farther away in July (aphelion) at the present time. Because of precession, the reverse will be true in 13,000 years and the Earth will then be closer to the Sun in July (illustration B). This means, of course, that if everything else remains constant, 13,000 years from now seasonal variations in the Northern Hemisphere should be greater than at present (colder winters and warmer summers) because of the closer proximity of the Earth to the Sun.

Figure 7y-2: Modification of the timing of aphelion and perihelion over time (A = today; B = 13,000 years into the future).

The third cyclical variation is related to the changes in the tilt (obliquity) of the Earth’s axis of rotation over a 41,000 year period. During the 41,000 year cycle the tilt can deviate from approximately 22.5 to 24.5°. At the present time, the tilt of the Earth’s axis is 23.5°. When the tilt is small there is less climatic variation between the summer and winter seasons in the middle and high latitudes. Winters tend to be milder and summers cooler. Warmer winters allow for more snow to fall in the high latitude regions. When the atmosphere is warmer it has a greater ability to hold water vapor and therefore more snow is produced at areas of frontal or orographic uplift. Cooler summers cause snow and ice to accumulate on the Earth’s surface because less of this frozen water is melted. Thus, the net effect of a smaller tilt would be more extensive formation of glaciers in the polar latitudes

physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7y.html

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

OK, I can’t resist linking to this article from First Things magazine:
The Truth About Greenhouse Gases

Excellent article!

The Truth About Greenhouse Gases
The dubious science of the climate crusaders.
William Happer
The object of the Author in the following pages has been to collect the most remarkable instances of those moral epidemics which have been excited, sometimes by one cause and sometimes by another, and to show how easily the masses have been led astray, and how imitative and gregarious men are, even in their infatuations and crimes,” wrote Charles Mackay in the preface to the first edition of his Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. I want to discuss a contemporary moral epidemic: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet. The “climate crusade” is one characterized by true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types—even children’s crusades—all based on contested science and dubious claims.

I am a strong supporter of a clean environment. We need to be vigilant to keep our land, air, and waters free of real pollution, particulates, heavy metals, and pathogens, but carbon dioxide (CO2 ) is not one of these pollutants. Carbon is the stuff of life. Our bodies are made of carbon. A normal human exhales around 1 kg of CO2 (the simplest chemically stable molecule of carbon in the earth’s atmosphere) per day. Before the industrial period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 270 ppm. At the present time, the concentration is about 390 ppm, 0.039 percent of all atmospheric molecules and less than 1 percent of that in our breath. About fifty million years ago, a brief moment in the long history of life on earth, geological evidence indicates, CO2 levels were several thousand ppm, much higher than now. And life flourished abundantly.

firstthings.com/article/2011/05/the-truth-about-greenhouse-gases

 

[Pax_et_Bonum]

The last paragraph is the best:

Life is about making decisions, and decisions are about trade-offs. We can choose to promote investment in technology that addresses real problems and scientific research that will let us cope with real problems more efficiently. Or we can be caught up in a crusade that seeks to suppress energy use, economic growth, and the benefits that come from the creation of national wealth.