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

[lmachine]

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.

Most of the Himalayan glaciers are classified as temperate or sub-polar (behave like polar glaciers at high elevations but temperate glaciers at lower elevations). Temperate glaciers melt year-round. They melt more slowly in the winter but they still melt, and that supplies water in 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.

Climate change is already making monsoons more extreme. The Tibet plateau influences weather on a global scale and is warming at a rate well-above average. While scientists don’t know exactly what the effects are going to be they know there’s going to be (already is) a change in the monsoon cycles.

 

[Ender]

Climate change is already making monsoons more extreme. The Tibet plateau influences weather on a global scale and is warming at a rate well-above average. While scientists don’t know exactly what the effects are going to be they know there’s going to be (already is) a change in the monsoon cycles.

It is regularly claimed that global warming has made hurricanes both more numerous and more intense, a “fact” that appears to have little support from…facts. I suspect the assertion with regard to monsoons is no more accurate.

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

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…

Of course, we can’t ALL go on wind all the time. Ideally there will be a mix of wind, solar, other alt energy, and some back-up fossil fuel energy (or “green” fuels).

The way it works is Grn Mt sends its wind-generated electricity to the grid. People who have signed up with Grn Mt will get that amount of electricity sent to the grid. We then withdraw our electricity from the common grid. The real question is what percentage of electricity can wind energy provide in a region or state. I’ve seen maps that show most states could generate between 30 and 40% of electricity from wind – and that percentage, of course, would increase greatly IF people reduce their electricity consumption thru efficiency and conservation (also on my list).

When there is less wind, there is often more sun, so with solar added into the mix the alt energy potential increases greatly. That’s why we installed solar panels – the excess energy we generate goes into the grid (and we get paid for it). There are some countries, like Germany, that generate a lot of their energy thru wind and solar. It’s perfectly doable if there is a will. It would be good if our gov were to have FIT (feed-in-tariffs), as Germany has, that encourages alt energy.

Since these alt forms of energy also reduce grave harms from other environmental problems (not to mention reducing the using up of finite resources, the buying from questionable areas of the world and the military needed to secure that), there are many reasons, not only climate change, to go on alt energy. It’s a win-win-win-win situation, compared to using fossil fuels, which is a lose-lose-lose-BIG LOSE (from climate change) situation.

And, OBTW, you’re neglecting the environmental devastation caused by the mining of the rare earth metals your Volt needs in your calculations…

I’m quite aware of that, but that doesn’t even come close to the devastation caused by ICE cars. There are people dying from leukemia in the town next to us from benzene due to underground leakage from gas stations – which the Texas gov refuses to clean up. Aside from people harmed by resource extraction to build and run ICE cars, many people are harmed by polluted air, there lives cut short, their babies aborted, etc.

We need to have a holistic view and do right by God’s creation, which He pronounced “good.”

 

[lynnvinc]

It is regularly claimed that global warming has made hurricanes both more numerous and more intense, a “fact” that appears to have little support from…facts. I suspect the assertion with regard to monsoons is no more accurate.

Ender

I think the monsoon rains that crops in India require depend on several factors. I remember seeing a docu in the late 80s on global warming and a meteorological scientist in India explaining how if the ocean warms more greatly (the Arabian Sea & Bay of Bengal for India) than the land, that pulls the monsoon rains over the ocean where they precipitate, leaving the subcontinent dry, causing crop failure and starvation; most people in India live very “close to the margin” so the monsoons are essential for their survival.

Furthermore, because a warming climate causes more water vapor (WV) to be held up in the atmosphere, this has 2 effects: (1) droughts, by sucking up moisture from the land and the flora (also leading to more wild fires), and (2) severe flooding, when due to certain weather conditions that WV comes pouring down in great deluges, and sometimes flood during droughts, washing away soil where the flora has dried up and died.

As for the Himalayan glaciers, they are in a state of increased melting now. The normal pattern is for them to gain snow pack in the winter, then melt more or less that same amount in the summer, irrigating the crops of India and China. Now with more melting than snow pack increase they are experiencing flooding and land-slides.

While the glaciers won’t all melt by 2023 (as was mistakenly claimed by an Indian scientist who was NOT a glaciologist, but got blamed & smeared to kingdom come), they will eventually all melt with over the next few centuries with extreme warming. At that time there will be NO summer irrigation for 40% of India’s and China’s population, but only severe flooding in the winter.

Also the snow pack and shrinking glaciers losing weight is contributing to local earth-quakes, such as the one in 2015 that killed 9,000 people in Nepal.

There are studies on all of these, including studies that show hurricanes are increasing in number and intensity. You just have to look them up. I’ve been following the science on CC for over 25 years. It’s all there and with a sincere search you can find these too.

 

[lynnvinc]

Here’s a study I think we need to look at re what might happen in the future of this warming episode as it gets warmer and warmer – perhaps 6C warmer sometime next century, as it got during the end-Permian great warming when 95% of life died out; the main difference being we are injecting GHGs into the atmosphere at a much quicker pace, orders of magnitude quicker:

“Massive release of hydrogen sulfide to the surface ocean and atmosphere during intervals of oceanic anoxia” at geology.gsapubs.org/content/33/5/397.short

Abstract: Simple calculations show that if deep-water H2S concentrations increased beyond a critical threshold during oceanic anoxic intervals of Earth history, the chemocline separating sulfidic deep waters from oxygenated surface waters could have risen abruptly to the ocean surface (a chemocline upward excursion). Atmospheric photochemical modeling indicates that resulting fluxes of H2S to the atmosphere (>2000 times the small modern flux from volcanoes) would likely have led to toxic levels of H2S in the atmosphere. Moreover, the ozone shield would have been destroyed, and methane levels would have risen to >100 ppm. We thus propose (1) chemocline upward excursion as a kill mechanism during the end-Permian, Late Devonian, and Cenomanian–Turonian extinctions, and (2) persistently high atmospheric H2S levels as a factor that impeded evolution of eukaryotic life on land during the Proterozoic.

And a more recent study: “Climate warming in the latest Permian and the Permian–Triassic mass extinction” at geology.gsapubs.org/content/40/3/195.abstract

…The oxygen isotope shift coincides with the negative shift in carbon isotope ratios of carbonates, suggesting that the addition of isotopically light carbon to the ocean-atmosphere system by Siberian Traps volcanism and related processes resulted in higher greenhouse gas levels and global warming. The major temperature rise started immediately before the main extinction phase, with maximum and harmful temperatures documented in the latest Permian (Meishan: bed 27). The coincidence of climate warming and the main pulse of extinction suggest that global warming was one of the causes of the collapse of the marine and terrestrial ecosystems. In addition, very warm climate conditions in the Early Triassic may have played a major role in the delayed recovery in the aftermath of the Permian-Triassic crisis.

These studies are alarming, so go ahead and call me an alarmist. (When there really is a fire in the theater, wouldn’t we want the people to file out in a orderly fashion so as to save as many lives as possible ?)

 

[Xystus]

It’s perfectly doable if there is a will. It would be good if our gov were to have FIT (feed-in-tariffs), as Germany has, that encourages alt energy.

I am all for “alt energy” but not it being forced into use by making other energy more expensive through the use of tariff, taxes, fees or any other governmental use of force. If solar and wind or anything else can compete with fossil fuels then great, but we should not be making other energy more expensive.

Since these alt forms of energy also reduce grave harms from other environmental problems (not to mention reducing the using up of finite resources, the buying from questionable areas of the world and the military needed to secure that), there are many reasons, not only climate change, to go on alt energy. It’s a win-win-win-win situation, compared to using fossil fuels, which is a lose-lose-lose-BIG LOSE (from climate change) situation.

Environmental problems like wind farms killing birds? or solar fields contributing to habitat loss? or the hazardous materials used in the manufacture of solar cells? Alt energy is not free from issues. We could also reduce or even eliminate buying from questionable areas by taping into our own resources while providing much needed jobs at the same time.

 

[Ender]

I think the monsoon rains that crops in India require depend on several factors.

I’m sure that’s true. I was reacting only to the assertion that “Climate change is already making monsoons more extreme”, stated as if it was a fact, not a mere hypothesis. With regard to climate change very few things are factually true; virtually every claim is - at best - a theory.

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

St_Francis:

I remember the water of the Potomac before the EPA was established. Ick !!! Now people windsurf on the river wearing only swimsuits. Big change!

While we in the West pride ourselves on turning everything green, China is destroying its air and land with rare earth metals mining. It is as if we have hideen our pollution in China and are patting ourselves on the back for our “successful” clean-up.

And that is partly our pollution, when we consider we buy products made in China. But I think there is far more pollution in China than from mining rare earth metals. I used to show a film on the pollution in China to my environmental class, and it is extensive.

The good news is that China is moving much faster on alt energy than the U.S. is, and they will surely corner the market and use it to help clean up their own country. See cleantechnica.com/2016/03/06/china-renewable-growth-soars-fossil-fuel-use-declines/

There is a balance between destroying our economy and destroying our environment. In the US, we are cleaning up on the backs of the now jobless poor and of the poor in China. Yes, I think the AGW things should be done away with. Doing that does not require eliminating all pollution control.

And the good news is we can reduce pollution and AGW in cost-effective ways, at least a 50% to 75% reduction in GHG emissions and concomitant pollution without lowering our living standards, and strengthening the economy.

We need to do those things first, the low-hanging fruits – and it would be great if the gov would help and incentivize this. We can perhaps then think of sacrifice later on, if necessary. I’m willing, but I know most people are not.

Our household has reduced its GHG emissions and concomitant pollution by more than 60% over the past 26 years, saving us $1,000s without lowering our living standard (my husband is one who does not want to lower our living standard) – which is great now that we are retired.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I’m sure that’s true. I was reacting only to the assertion that “Climate change is already making monsoons more extreme”, stated as if it was a fact, not a mere hypothesis. With regard to climate change very few things are factually true; virtually every claim is - at best - a theory.

Ender

That is true about most things in life.

 

[lynnvinc]

I’m sure that’s true. I was reacting only to the assertion that “Climate change is already making monsoons more extreme”, stated as if it was a fact, not a mere hypothesis. With regard to climate change very few things are factually true; virtually every claim is - at best - a theory.

Ender

It’s more a matter of climate change increasing the risk of more extreme and/or more frequent storms, heatwaves, wildfires, floods, droughts, etc. – loading the dice for these to occur, so to speak. And that is because climate is different from weather, it is the statistical aggregate of weather. So it is possible that Podunk, Somewhere is actually getting cooler, while other places are getting warmer. That’s why they call it “global” warming.

As for monsoons, it only makes sense that CC would increase the severity of these, since warmer air holds more moisture thru evaporation, so there is more water up there in the sky to come pouring down – tho it might pour down over the ocean rather than the land, leaving the crops to wither and die (which sort of happened in parts of India this year), or it might come deluging down over the land wreaking havoc with floods, destroying crops and homes, as it did last year.

RE hurricanes climate change increases the sea surface temps, which are a necessary but not sufficient factor in generating hurricanes. So we can understand why CC has been increasing the frequency of hurricanes (2 studies in 2005 re that), by increasing that factor, and increasing their intensity (2012 study). Luckily recently most hurricanes have been going out to sea and not hitting land.

Think of heat and energy – heat becomes kinetic energy under some conditions. And being a person in a hurricane zone, I’ve found the temps cool down during hurricanes (as the heat energy turns into the storm). They even had a hail storm in Brownsville in August 2005 during Hurricane Emily, which was a very odd occurrence.

Scientists are getting better and better at being able to attribute various regional weather happenings to climate change, but they have a long way to go.

So if we are looking to climate change to tell us what’s happening in Mytown, USA next year or 10 years from now even, it won’t be of much use. If we are looking to see if climate change is causing various harms worldwide, it has better attribution and predictability in that. (You need a lot of stats to reach stat significance.)

Since I’m mainly concerned how my GHGs (and that of others) are negatively impacting people wherever they may be in the world, I am concerned about climate change. I’m not much concerned for myself, since I’m relatively well-off compared to many of the 7 billion people on earth AND I’m getting up there in years and may not have much longer to live.

So I mitigate CC with others in mind, not for my own welfare, but it is good that in so doing I’m saving us money in our retirement years.

 

[Cathoholic]

Tucker Carlson to Climatologist Judith Curry (who is stepping down from her Georgia Tech position in part over frustration at the politicization of the climate change issues):

** . . . You have written that part of the problem with climate science . . . . is that research money only goes to researchers producing certain lines of inquiry. And that they are all the same. And that prevents good science from happening." . . . .**

video.foxnews.com/v/5273586586001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips

 

[Sy_Noe]

I’m not surprised. Climate change is a very important issue to the visible head of the Catholic Church on earth whom the faithful call the Vicar of Christ.

 

[lynnvinc]

Tucker Carlson to Climatologist Judith Curry (who is stepping down from her Georgia Tech position in part over frustration at the politicization of the climate change issues):

video.foxnews.com/v/5273586586001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips

Read her blog statement & it seems she’s happy with her decision. In every field there will be “outliers” who question the mainstream ideas.

She does not deny CC nor that it is human-caused, only that there are some uncertainties (big margin of error bars). From the solely scientific perspective it is okay to do that (tho some think she exaggerates the uncertainty). Note that scientists usually require 95% confidence (p=.05 or less on the null). Also she does not seem to take into account the physics on which climate science rests, which tells that even if there hasn’t been much CC to date we can expect a lot more in the future – it takes a long time, but once we’ve passed some points of warming it will be difficult or impossible to halt the process.

Policy-makers & religious people concerned with such life-threatening issues OTOH do not have such stiff requirements. Prudence requires us to address such problems anyway, with or without high certainty…which is what Pope Francis is doing.

 

[Cathoholic]

Lynnvinc. You said (emphasis mine):

She does not deny CC nor that it is human-caused, only that there are some uncertainties (big margin of error bars).

That’s not what she said.

 

[lynnvinc]

Lynnvinc. You said (emphasis mine):

That’s not what she said.

That’s how I understand where her difference is with other climate scientists – she thought they were not telling the public about the error bars or uncertainty. It seems some climate scientists got upset with her & she just dug her heels in more & it became polarized between her & the other climate scientists.

I’ve also wondered if she’s receiving bug bucks from the denialist industry…may after she started criticizing some climate scientists.

Considering the harassment & death threats climate scientists receive from the denialist community, it is understandable that they would have been upset with Curry’s criticisms. If it had been some obscure topic that no one cared about, it wouldn’t have become so polarized…or maybe it would have. I’ve heard of some anthropologists from opposite scools of thought on stuff people don’t really care about who won’t even speak to each other.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Right now, it’s 68 degrees where I am. Not unusual, even in January. However, the local weather is warning of a potential ice storm tomorrow and the next day. Neither of those are unusual for January.

We get ice storms quite a lot because when the moist, warm gulf air comes up (which is now) and then continental cold air comes down from the north, they meet right about here. The cold air slides underneath the warm air, so rain turns to ice.

Been that way since I was a kid, and it’s that way now. Nor do those storms happen nearly as often much north or south of here. Same with tornados, and for the same reason. We’re in “tornado alley” which has not moved an inch due to “climate change”. If the climate had changed, it would have all moved north, but it hasn’t.

All the MMGW writers can say what they want, but I’m like most people who don’t experience a bit of “climate change”. If it was changing, there would be some differences.

Personally, I would opt for sleet or snow this time rather than freezing rain. I really enjoy feeding cattle in sleet or snow. It’s so pretty. But the ice is pretty too, I’ll grant. My bobcat tracks churn up the ice into crystalline beauty, the trees are also beautiful with ice on them. But it’s a little scary on the roads.

It also tells a person which trees are acclimated and which ones aren’t. Almost never do the cedars, walnuts, white oaks, dogwoods’ limbs break with the ice. The limbs of non-native red oaks do, sometimes disastrously to the tree. Interesting to see all of that.

If we really wanted to sequester carbon, we would pay more attention to things like that. Waste wood on the ground largely returns carbon to the atmosphere. Trees that stay intact can sequester carbon for hundreds of years.

But nobody pays attention to such things, because the political MMGW movement just wants us to live with less energy, and isn’t really interested in natural carbon sequestration.

 

[Cathoholic]

Like I said Lynnvinc. You said, among other things in post 252 (emphasis mine):

“She does not deny CC nor that it is human-caused, only that there are some uncertainties” – lynnvinc

And you attempting to triangulate away from these partial-truth comments of yours in post 254, does not change the fact that this is NOT what she said.

I would invite readers of this thread to go to the link and listen to the Climatologist for yourself.

Listen to ALL of what she says and see if you draw the same conclusion that lynnvinc invented above.

Here it is: video.foxnews.com/v/5273586586001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips

Watch it for yourself.

Then ask yourself if the Climatologist (that explicitly talks about harassment from the people who have bullied her on the climate change issues and other aspects that in her opinion HURT real unbiased reproducible honest research and conclusions) says ONLY that there are some uncertainties.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Like I said Lynnvinc. You said, among other things in post 252 (emphasis mine):

And you attempting to triangulate away from these partial-truth comments of yours in post 254, does not change the fact that this is NOT what she said.

I would invite readers of this thread to go to the link and listen to the Climatologist for yourself.

Listen to ALL of what she says and see if you draw the same conclusion that lynnvinc invented above.

Here it is: video.foxnews.com/v/5273586586001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips

Watch it for yourself.

Then ask yourself if the Climatologist (that explicitly talks about harassment from the people who have bullied her on the climate change issues and other aspects that in her opinion HURT real unbiased reproducible honest research and conclusions) says ONLY that there are some uncertainties.

I thought this thread was about what Pope Francis says about climate change. Why are we talking about what one disaffected climatologists says?

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafbyNiggle:

I thought this thread was about what Pope Francis says about climate change. Why are we talking about what one disaffected climatologists says?

(Aside from your premise having a built-in falsehood) . . . .

Because Pope Francis warns about people who say they “Care about ecosystems” yet are “looking for quick and easy profit”.

If what this climatologist says is true, then it suggests the possibility of some people using the Climate Change game, MAY be looking for a “quick and easy profit”.

(I mentioned this phenomenon and our Pope’s warning earlier in the thread.)

POPE FRANCIS Caring for ecosystems demands far-sightedness, since no one looking for quick and easy profit is truly interested in their preservation. Pope Francis Laudato Si (36)

 

[lynnvinc]

Getting back to the OP…

Here’s something the Church is doing in Spain re a Catholic approach to env issues, based on Pope Francis’s LS:

Instituting Laudato Si’ – Spain’s Diocese of Granada is now home to the Laudato Si’ Institute for the Care of Creation
catholicecology.net/blog/instituting-laudato-si

BTW, I care more about what Pope Francis and 99% of climate scientists have to say about climate change & couldn’t care less about what one outlier (science always has a few outliers) named J. Curry has to say. End of story