Pope Francis urges UN conference to ‘act without delay’ on climate change

[ucfengr]

Lynnvinc was not proposing that those measures be mandatory. That was your argument, which you now want to argue against? Look up Geri’s Game on YouTube.

The notion of voluntary compliance doesn’t match up with the “end of the world” rhetoric. If, as we are hearing from advocates, the planet is on the verge of being uninhabitable for our grandchildren, then niceties like voluntary compliance have no place, severe punishment for violations must be the order of the day. So which is it, the “end of the world” or not?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The notion of voluntary compliance doesn’t match up with the “end of the world” rhetoric. If, as we are hearing from advocates, the planet is on the verge of being uninhabitable for our grandchildren, then niceties like voluntary compliance have no place, severe punishment for violations must be the order of the day. So which is it, the “end of the world” or not?

You are still playing Geri’s Game.

 

[Ender]

If it’s irrefutable, why are the power players flying their private jets to Davos and Rio not taking steps to reduce their carbon footprint. I got news for you, Donald Trump’s carbon footprint is much lower than President Obama’s. When is he going to start living his life like there’s a problem?

Assuming your facts are accurate this would at worst make “power players” hypocrites; the real question is whether they are wrong. The better argument is to refute the assertion that temperatures are higher now than they’ve been in the last 6,000 years. Claims that something is “irrefutable” are usually easy to prove false, and this claim is no exception.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

I can’t speak to the accuracy of this chart, but it ought to be clear that anyone who thinks temperatures today are “irrefutably” higher than in the past 6000 years is inventing his own facts.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It seems to me we live in this bizarro world of climate change denial were human lives don’t really count, children don’t count, and future progeny are not even to be considered, and the poor are out-of-sight-out-of-mind.

Pssst…Leaf-by-Niggle???

 

[Ender]

“Climate Change” is just another word for “Population Reduction” or “Population Control”. You will notice that almost everyone who is a big proponent of “Climate Change” is soft on the right-to-life…

I agree with you that a lot of people who support climate change mitigation do so for reasons having little or nothing to do with their concern for the climate…but that doesn’t mean the arguments in favor of MMGW are wrong. If we’re going to repudiate their claims it will have to be done by showing the science behind those claims is wrong. Their reasons for making those claims are not relevant. Fortunately there are a lot of scientific reasons to oppose those claims, but that is where the battle has to be fought.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Assuming your facts are accurate this would at worst make “power players” hypocrites; the real question is whether they are wrong. The better argument is to refute the assertion that temperatures are higher now than they’ve been in the last 6,000 years. Claims that something is “irrefutable” are usually easy to prove false, and this claim is no exception.

https://andymaypetrophysicist.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/072816_2100_areviewofte1.png?w=776

I can’t speak to the accuracy of this chart, but it ought to be clear that anyone who thinks temperatures today are “irrefutably” higher than in the past 6000 years is inventing his own facts.

Ender

Actually the global average temperatures were about the same as now from 7500 BC to 3500 BC, and I have no doubt your graph of central Greenland is accurate. No one is inventing facts to contradict either of these facts. No one is claiming the earth’s temperature is higher than in the past 6000 years. What is irrefutable is that the rate of average global temperature rise (degrees per century) in the industrial age, and especially in the last half of the industrial age, is unprecedented in the past 20,000 years. That is not an invented fact.

Let’s also remember that even if projected temperatures are no higher than in the ancient past, humans were not so widespread and numerous. Small bands of humans and their food sources could more easily adapt to the slowly changing conditions. Those same conditions, if brought about suddenly today, would be disastrous since we are so much more dependent on stability and efficiency of our use of resources.

 

[Ender]

It assumes the immorality of the Global Warming alarmist elites, has no bearing on the “research” results.

Let me start by saying I agree with much of what you said. I, too, have a very low opinion of what passes for scientific integrity in the climate change field. That said, making that claim is not a particularly useful argument: scientific claims are being made, and it is those claims that need to be refuted, not the scientists making them. Frankly, I don’t find it all that difficult to challenge most of the global warming claims; there is a great deal of information available presenting the other (scientific) side of the debate. This is especially so when responding to claims that “there is no question” that a particular assertion is true. Charges that “they’re evil because…” is like firing blanks. You can only hit the target by saying “they’re wrong because…”

Ender

 

[Ender]

Actually the global average temperatures were about the same as now from 7500 BC to 3500 BC, and I have no doubt your graph of central Greenland is accurate.

This is the assertion I was responding to:the signal of man made climate change is irrefutable at this point, they can directly measure it now. all other possible causes have been ruled out, it has been well over 6,000 years since we have seen global temperatures this warm
It appears that you too recognize this statement is inaccurate. My real point, though, was to demonstrate that claims of irrefutability are greatly exaggerated. NOAA makes this point in one of their papers:*The medieval level of warmth is uncertain, but may have been reached again in the mid-20th century, only to have likely been exceeded since then. *
NOAA won’t even say that it is certain current temperatures are higher now than they were in medieval times, and if we don’t even know for certain what temperatures were reached in medieval times how can we claim to know how fast we reached them? Assertions of irrefutability are overblown.

What is irrefutable is that the rate of average global temperature rise (degrees per century) in the industrial age, and especially in the last half of the industrial age, is unprecedented in the past 20,000 years. That is not an invented fact.

If it is not an invented fact it would seem at the very least an unwarranted assumption.Before 2,000 years ago, temperature variations have not been systematically compiled into large-scale averages…
If temperature variations have not been systematically compiled into averages going back further than 2000 years it seems a leap to claim that the current rate of warming is greater than anything in the last 20,000 years. To claim it is irrefutably true is to misunderstand the meaning of the word. Now, NOAA does believe the current rate is unusual:*It is thus clear that the current rate of global climate change is much more rapid and very unusual in the context of past changes. *
Having said that, however, they continue:*The much-discussed abrupt climate shifts during glacial times (see Section 6.3) are not counter-examples, since they were **probably **due to changes in ocean heat transport, which would be **unlikely **to affect the global mean temperature. *
“Probably” and “unlikely” are not terms that support any position as “irrefutable.” Also, the question of whether this warming is the greatest in the last 20,000 years is of questionable significance. In geological terms is that a meaningful period? Should it be 10K? 30K? 100K? Is 20K just an arbitrary period? Let me say this again: given that we don’t even have agreement on what the temperature record has been over the last 20 years with constant observations made by satellites, ocean buoys, and history’s most extensive use of land stations, how is it possible to claim that reconstructions of the historical temperature record by proxies can give irrefutable results? I don’t necessarily argue that these claims are wrong, but I do argue that they are not irrefutably true.

Ender

 

[kingston1]

You are still playing Geri’s Game.

No, the game being played by oneself is you and the OP.

In the OP’s original posts… it was said to paraphrase that to deny climate change is equivalent to killing millions of people. Was that not said? WAS IT NOT?

Then, later the OP said to paraphrase that we don’t really need to do much to make a change. Reduce, reuse, recycle. I do that and deny climate change. So, which am I the end of mankind or the savior?

This is like a man who goes to the doctor. The doctor says the man only has a few months to live because of smoking, drinking, eating. The man asks the doctor what he must do to live longer. The doctor says in reply “oh not much try the little way of getting healthier. Don’t use ranch dressing and you should be fine.”

Either this is serious or it isn’t. I’m out of here.

Bye Bye.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, the game being played by oneself is you and the OP.

In the OP’s original posts… it was said to paraphrase that to deny climate change is equivalent to killing millions of people. Was that not said? WAS IT NOT?

Yes, and that is a view I do not support.

Then, later the OP said to paraphrase that we don’t really need to do much to make a change. Reduce, reuse, recycle.

You misunderstood Lynn if you think that is all she thinks is needed.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is the assertion I was responding to:the signal of man made climate change is irrefutable at this point, they can directly measure it now. all other possible causes have been ruled out, it has been well over 6,000 years since we have seen global temperatures this warm
It appears that you too recognize this statement is inaccurate.

I do. Certainly the last claim is inaccurate, and the first part is imprecise.

My real point, though, was to demonstrate that claims of irrefutability are greatly exaggerated.

Actually I kind of agree with that. The term “irrefutable” should not ever be used with scientific assertions, which should always be open to falsification based on new data. My own use of the word was scientifically sloppy.

Assertions of irrefutability are overblown.
If it is not an invented fact it would seem at the very least an unwarranted assumption.Before 2,000 years ago, temperature variations have not been systematically compiled into large-scale averages…
If temperature variations have not been systematically compiled into averages going back further than 2000 years it seems a leap to claim that the current rate of warming is greater than anything in the last 20,000 years.

Global averages based on reconstructions will not have the same accuracy as global averages based on massive current data. So I agree that the absolute temperature reconstruction record is less certain. But it is hard to imagine how there could be sudden changes in the past without those changes appearing somehow in one of the various proxies used to form reconstructions. It is a little like Ridgerunner’s argument that if there is global warming, shouldn’t he see some change in the biological proxies for climate that he observes in Missouri. However I would argue that his proxies for climate are not even as widespread geographically as the proxies used in pre-historical temperature constructions.

Also, suppose I was wrong and the climate scientists who form pre-historical temperature reconstructions were also wrong. Suppose there were natural events in pre-history that caused temperature rises comparable to what we have experienced in the last 100 years - natural events that the scientists somehow have not yet detected in their investigations. What impact would such a thing have on the conclusions that man is responsible for the current temperature rise? Would that seriously discredit the conclusion?

I don’t think so. While earth-spanning natural events in pre-history might have escaped the notice of scientists today, similar earth-spanning natural events in contemporary history is much less likely to escape notice, since we have had people (not just scientists) observing the world from every continent. If there were, say, as asteroid the size of the one that caused the last big extinction event, it could hardly have happened without, at the very least, making headlines around the world. So even if you distrust pre-historical temperature reconstructions, it is hard to see how you can escape the conclusion that most of the recent temperature rise is due to human activity. Of course I will not go so far as to say it is irrefutable.

 

[Ender]

Global averages based on reconstructions will not have the same accuracy as global averages based on massive current data. So I agree that the absolute temperature reconstruction record is less certain. But it is hard to imagine how there could be sudden changes in the past without those changes appearing somehow in one of the various proxies used to form reconstructions.

True, one would expect to detect sudden changes. I will point out that there has been much discussion about whether the medieval warm period was localized to Europe. That seems unlikely to me inasmuch as it existed for what? 400 years? Nonetheless, if such a thing was feasible, what does that say about the possibility that proxy temperature reconstruction wouldn’t suffer from the same shortcoming of showing only local phenomena rather than global ones?

Also, suppose I was wrong and the climate scientists who form pre-historical temperature reconstructions were also wrong. Suppose there were natural events in pre-history that caused temperature rises comparable to what we have experienced in the last 100 years - natural events that the scientists somehow have not yet detected in their investigations. What impact would such a thing have on the conclusions that man is responsible for the current temperature rise? Would that seriously discredit the conclusion?

Yes, I think it would be quite discrediting. After all, if the strength of the argument is that 20th century warming is unprecedented - and therefore man is obviously the culprit - then showing that such warming can be caused by other, unknown effects would be more than a little damaging to the claim.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Yes, I think it would be quite discrediting. After all, if the strength of the argument is that 20th century warming is unprecedented - and therefore man is obviously the culprit - then showing that such warming can be caused by other, unknown effects would be more than a little damaging to the claim.

Ender

Well, it would be damaging to the claim that the current rate of warming is unprecedented. But that conclusion is not essential to the claim that man is causing this particular warming. For that conclusion you only need to have one plausible explanation (CO2 greenhouse effect) together with the absence of alternative explanations (world-spanning natural catastrophic driving event). You don’t really need to look back into pre-history at all.

 

[lmachine]

Is it just me, or does this sound like a recipe for disaster? Sure seems to me like fertile ground for tyranny and other atrocities.

What sounds like a recipe for disaster and fertile ground for tyranny and atrocities to me is the water crisis that will result from the Third Pole melting and leave much of Asia without sufficient water supplies.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What sounds like a recipe for disaster and fertile ground for tyranny and atrocities to me is the water crisis that will result from the Third Pole melting and leave much of Asia without sufficient water supplies.

Are you talking about the Hindu Kush/Himalayan mountain region?

I have seen programs about that and read about it a little. The idea is that numerous Asian rivers rise in that area from seasonal glacier melt, and if “upstream” areas use it excessively, then the “downstream” users will suffer.

That’s probably true. That’s a geopolitical problem and hopefully the involved nations will be able to resolve it reasonably. It’s not dissimilar from the fact that if Turkey increases its use of the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates, it could seriously damage Iraq and Syria. In the U.S., use of the waters of the Colorado River have caused it to no longer flow into Mexico at all.

But from what I have read, there is no certainty that “global warming” will have any particular effect on any of it. For the glaciers to melt, there has to be moisture to form the glaciers in the first place. The major Asian rivers flow year-round; both when there is glacier melt and when there isn’t. There is no certainty that increased glacier melt will affect those rivers, other than perhaps to even the flow year-round.

 

[lynnvinc]

A lot of the things you suggest have nothing to do with mitigating global warming, and what’s the mechanism for enforcement? If the planet is in danger, then none of these things can be suggestions, they must be mandates enforced by the full majesty of the law. What, for example, should be the punishment for using an incandescent bulb? Using an incandescent bulb is literally killing people, so I suspect it should be severe.

On the contrary, nearly everything we do or buy has to do with GHG emissions. As mentioned nearly every product entails GHG emissions in its resource extraction, processing, shipping, manufacturing, shopping, consuming, and/or disposal.

Global warming is perhaps the toughest nut to crack we’ve ever encountered because it is basically caused by our high consumption, industrial lifestyle. We live in structures of high GHG emissions and it is difficult to extract ourselves from these.

The good news is there are plenty of things to do without lowering our living standards that can reduce our GHG emissions by half, even 75%. My list is a good place to start.

I was keeping track for over 15 years of our electricity, gas, gasoline, and water bills and saw them make significant declines over that period; we also made efforts to reduce our purchases, buying only things we needed or thought would really really bring us some satisfaction or happiness – i.e., forgoing impulse buying of junk we really didn’t need or want. By 2001 we were able to reduce our GHG emissions, I figure, by about 30% or more.

After going on 100% wind-generated electricity in 2002 and getting a Volt and solar panels the following decade, along with all the other things we’ve done over the past 26 years, I guessimate we reduced our GHG emissions by over 60%. And there is more we can do…

Also inventors and scientists are coming up with many great solutions.

There’s really no enforcement, only the good will of people concerned about life on earth. There are those who – even if fees and taxes are put on things to make people reduce consumption or choose the lower GHG emission alternative – will just pay the higher prices, without any concern about reducing their env footprint.

There is just no way the government can solve this problem without the cooperation of a large portion of people on earth. Sadly there is no “silver bullet.”

 

[ucfengr]

On the contrary, nearly everything we do or buy has to do with GHG emissions. As mentioned nearly every product entails GHG emissions in its resource extraction, processing, shipping, manufacturing, shopping, consuming, and/or disposal.

Global warming is perhaps the toughest nut to crack we’ve ever encountered because it is basically caused by our high consumption, industrial lifestyle. We live in structures of high GHG emissions and it is difficult to extract ourselves from these.

The good news is there are plenty of things to do without lowering our living standards that can reduce our GHG emissions by half, even 75%. My list is a good place to start.

I was keeping track for over 15 years of our electricity, gas, gasoline, and water bills and saw them make significant declines over that period; we also made efforts to reduce our purchases, buying only things we needed or thought would really really bring us some satisfaction or happiness – i.e., forgoing impulse buying of junk we really didn’t need or want. By 2001 we were able to reduce our GHG emissions, I figure, by about 30% or more.

After going on 100% wind-generated electricity in 2002 and getting a Volt and solar panels the following decade, along with all the other things we’ve done over the past 26 years, I guessimate we reduced our GHG emissions by over 60%. And there is more we can do…

Also inventors and scientists are coming up with many great solutions.

There’s really no enforcement, only the good will of people concerned about life on earth. There are those who – even if fees and taxes are put on things to make people reduce consumption or choose the lower GHG emission alternative – will just pay the higher prices, without any concern about reducing their env footprint.

There is just no way the government can solve this problem without the cooperation of a large portion of people on earth. Sadly there is no “silver bullet.”

I hate to break it to you, but unless your power company has a 100% dedicated power grid for wind, which it doesn’t, you’re using the same coal powered electricity everybody else is using. Putting up windmills or solar panels really doesn’t do anything for the power grid other than add cost. The power they generate don’t offset anything because, in our horrible consumer driven society, we expect the lights to come on when we flip the switch. It doesn’t matter whether the wind isn’t blowing or the sun isn’t shining. And, OBTW, you’re neglecting the environmental devastation caused by the mining of the rare earth metals your Volt needs in your calculations. I point this out in the hopes you’ll understand that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Yes, you may be cutting GHG emissions in one area, but there are other environment trade offs that you just magic away.

 

[Ridgerunner]

On the contrary, nearly everything we do or buy has to do with GHG emissions. As mentioned nearly every product entails GHG emissions in its resource extraction, processing, shipping, manufacturing, shopping, consuming, and/or disposal.

Global warming is perhaps the toughest nut to crack we’ve ever encountered because it is basically caused by our high consumption, industrial lifestyle. We live in structures of high GHG emissions and it is difficult to extract ourselves from these.

The good news is there are plenty of things to do without lowering our living standards that can reduce our GHG emissions by half, even 75%. My list is a good place to start.

I was keeping track for over 15 years of our electricity, gas, gasoline, and water bills and saw them make significant declines over that period; we also made efforts to reduce our purchases, buying only things we needed or thought would really really bring us some satisfaction or happiness – i.e., forgoing impulse buying of junk we really didn’t need or want. By 2001 we were able to reduce our GHG emissions, I figure, by about 30% or more.

After going on 100% wind-generated electricity in 2002 and getting a Volt and solar panels the following decade, along with all the other things we’ve done over the past 26 years, I guessimate we reduced our GHG emissions by over 60%. And there is more we can do…

Also inventors and scientists are coming up with many great solutions.

There’s really no enforcement, only the good will of people concerned about life on earth. There are those who – even if fees and taxes are put on things to make people reduce consumption or choose the lower GHG emission alternative – will just pay the higher prices, without any concern about reducing their env footprint.

There is just no way the government can solve this problem without the cooperation of a large portion of people on earth. Sadly there is no “silver bullet.”

With all due respect, I recall some time ago, your telling us about the very major subsidies you enjoyed in getting all of your emission reductions done. While I think that’s clever and all, and served your purpose, not everyone can get subsidized like that or the country would go broke. And too, not everybody can be retired in the Rio Grande Valley, as you are. Some of us live in the Dakotas or New England, have to travel significant distances, and have very different needs.

I am personally all in favor of things that can really lower the cost of energy for folks, but I don’t think artificially making energy more expensive is likely to do that.

 

[lmachine]

But from what I have read, there is no certainty that “global warming” will have any particular effect on any of it. For the glaciers to melt, there has to be moisture to form the glaciers in the first place. The major Asian rivers flow year-round; both when there is glacier melt and when there isn’t. There is no certainty that increased glacier melt will affect those rivers, other than perhaps to even the flow year-round.

I’m not sure what you’ve been reading. There is a lot of research on how the recession and eventual loss of Tibetan Plateau glaciers will be devastating to areas that rely on them. The major Asian rivers flow year-round because there’s glacier melt in the dry season. Chinese scientists have referred to the false sense of hope increased glacial melt will bring to drought-stricken areas but when the glaciers are gone there will be little or no water in the dry season. That amount of ice in one place is also hugely influential on global weather patterns. Scientists have no idea how the loss of ice in the area will affect the monsoons. So loss of dry season water, uncertainty of reliable future monsoon seasons, and a whole lot of people relying on that water.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m not sure what you’ve been reading. There is a lot of research on how the recession and eventual loss of Tibetan Plateau glaciers will be devastating to areas that rely on them. The major Asian rivers flow year-round because there’s glacier melt in the dry season. Chinese scientists have referred to the false sense of hope increased glacial melt will bring to drought-stricken areas but when the glaciers are gone there will be little or no water in the dry season. That amount of ice in one place is also hugely influential on global weather patterns. Scientists have no idea how the loss of ice in the area will affect the monsoons. So loss of dry season water, uncertainty of reliable future monsoon seasons, and a whole lot of people relying on that water.

The “dry season” in India and the Tibetan plateau includes the coldest months of the year. So, one would not ordinarily expect a lot of glacial melt throughout the dry season.

And if, as you say, scientists have no idea how the loss of ice on the Tibetan plateau will affect the monsoons, then there is no greater reason to believe it will affect them than that it won’t. Monsoons do not, of course, originate on the Tibetan plateau.