S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Generally, that is correct. However, some of the proposed solutions for global warming and climate change would actually leave things much worse off.
Vatican envoy: 'no further room for denial' on climate change [CC]
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That is not true at all. It is quite possible that the study is full of holes, but your criticism of it is incorrect for other reasons. I will illustrate with an analogy. Proposition: A study shows 62% of South American parrots are male. My criticism of that study: I visited a pet store and they had 2 male and 2 female parrots, so the study must be wrong. Now the proposition about the 62% figure is probably wrong . But my criticism of the study is also wrong because sampling 4 parrots in a single pet store is not sufficient to disprove the assertion that in the wild, 62% are male. What’s more, you can tell my criticism is faulty even without expert knowledge of the demographics of South American parrots. Criticising the study itself takes more expertise than criticizing a specific criticism of it.
That is a “common sense objection” only if you assume there is no other way to estimate historical ocean heat content than Argo buoys. Here is an article on how that is done.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Many of these solutions aren’t very sustainable:
Solar power in the USA has harmed the endangered desert tortoise and rolled back millions of dollars worth of volunteer hours on conservation projects
Wind power is technically in violation of the Migrant Bird Treaty, as Newt Gingrich recently noted at an event.
Hydroelectric dams are the leading cause of extinction of freshwater species and have displaces several native villages.
If the carbon-neutral tree scheme were ever implemented, people in third world countries would cut down much of the remaining forests and plant monotype stands of the same trees that would get them the most money from the new carbon economy. The effect on biodiversity would be catastrophic.
K
KSU
Guest
Worse, the world renowned, federally funded Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory "ran complex simulations of how the planet’s climate would change if trees in different parts of the world were removed or restored. Unexpectedly, they found that overall, deforestation cools the planet down, and adding new trees in some regions may actually fuel global warming.
"In a simulation where all the world’s trees were removed, the global temperature fell by about 0.3 degrees Celsius.
"Why should this be? After all, trees soak up carbon dioxide and store carbon in their bodies – this keeps the planet cool. They release water vapour into the air, which forms clouds that reflect solar radiation away form the earth, again resulting in cooling.
“But forests are also dark and by absorbing the energy from sunlight, they heat the planet too… this heating effect outweighs the cooling ones.”
notexactlyrocketscience.wordpress.com/2007/04/16/carbon-offset-schemes-worsen-global-warming-if-trees-are-planted-in-the-wrong-places/
Whenever I hear how the great god Science has pontificated this or that new doctrine, only to see it rejected by a new doctrine, I’m reminded of this: “At that time Jesus answered and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to the little ones.” Matthew/11-25
True science is a gift from God. And protecting the environment–God’s jewel box and sustainer of life–is everyone’s obligation. That is a major teaching of LAUDATO SI’, which is not focused on Church doctrine, and certainly not on climate change. Francis wants the people of the world to think and dialogue about environmentalism and human ecology; it’s not an AGW encyclical, but a urgent request for ecological conversion for the betterment of “our common home”.
We don’t hear the truth about the encylical at the U.N. or White House, but we do hear consideration/proposals for silencing skeptics and trillions of dollars in new, perpetual taxes. Shame!
E
Ender
Guest
You grant yourself the ability to criticize my comments while at the same time you deny me the ability to criticize the comments of others. You’re right, your parrot objection is easily debunked, but if you were to raise a similar objection about the 62% study would it be disallowed because you are not a parrot biologist?
Your objection that the layman lacks the ability to criticize the studies of scientists is without merit. While it is true that certain technical aspects are beyond the reach of the non-technician that doesn’t mean that all aspects of a study are. I think the Cook study demonstrates the problem. You assert that I am not technically proficient enough to criticize that study because I am not a certified climate scientist, but Cook himself is not a scientist either; he is a web/database programmer with undergraduate studies in physics. Your position is based solely on who has the higher credentials; it is completely removed from who has the better argument. If I claimed credentials similar to Cook’s would that make my argument stronger, or should the validity of an argument be based solely on the merits of the argument itself?
But since you are not a climate scientist you can’t judge the validity of the article. Why do you bother to research these articles since by your own admission you are incapable of understanding them? How can I respond to it if you dismiss my objections solely on the basis that I am not a marine geologist? Yours is the “He’s right because he says so and he’s a scientist” position, which, given the way the AGW arguments are crumbling is pretty much all that’s left.
Ender
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Probably. If a parrot biologists says he went into the jungle and counted parrots, who am I to challenge him? If also went into the jungle and counted parrots, then my objection would carry some weight. It depends on the nature of the objection. Some objections require different levels and kinds of expertise than others.
This is another way of saying what I said above. It depends on the nature of the objection.
Did I assert that? I think that complaint of mine was only regarding your objection to studies that purport to determine ocean temperatures prior to the ARGO buoys, because only a scientist working in that field would know what other estimation tools there are and what their limitations might be. You neither demonstrated nor claimed such knowledge. You simply claimed that the measurement tools you knew about could not make those estimates, therefore such tools must not exist. That objection is definitely one that only someone with expertise in the field of ocean metrology could make.
On the other hand, the Cook study, although it is about climate science, really takes no expertise in climate science to perform. What it does take is a basic understanding of statistics. That is a much more common level of expertise for which I have had some training, and probably you have too. So that study we may both be qualified to evaluate on a sufficiently technical level without either of us being climate scientists, or even working statisticians. And it on that basis that I object to your criticism of the study - not on any appeal to authority on my part or yours. Do you see the difference between the two cases?
E
Ender
Guest
Exactly. Expertise in a particular field is not necessary to raise relevant objections to some of the assertions that are made about AGW.
Actually, what I said was there was insufficient data prior to 2003 to allow for a reasonable extrapolation of ocean heat content back to the early 60’s. Using your parrot study, it would be like biologists counting the parrots they could see riding trains back and forth between the principal cities of a region. That pretty much captures the method of ocean temperature measurements. Most of the data came from the main shipping channels and the few research ships sent out to capture such information. The study you cited acknowledged the paucity of data in its abstract.*global ocean heat uptake estimates since 1950 depend strongly on assumptions made concerning changes in undersampled or unsampled ocean regions.
*It also noted that of the five depth regions it evaluated, data for the two deepest regions didn’t exist in any form prior to (ahem) 2003. What else does the study say?Accurate but spatially sparse temperature measurements using reversing thermometers, sometimes to full depth, commenced after 1874.
If that was true, what does this comment made just a few sentences later mean?*Like MBTs, XBTs are not very accurate (nominally ±0.1°C for temperature and ±2% for depth), but both comprise a large part of the observational record of upper ocean temperatures.
*Were the thermometers of 1874 more accurate than the XBTs that came out in the 1960s? And if the MBT’s and XBTs are not very accurate by their own admission, how much credibility should they be given? Here are the uncertainties the study itself brings out:*While reversing thermometers and CTDs are relatively accurate, XBTs have biases in both depth and temperature; different choices of XBT bias corrections lead to large uncertainties from at least 1993 to 2008
Sampling uncertainty also contributes significantly to the overall uncertainty and has strong dependence on time with larger uncertainties occurring for earlier years when the global ocean is not well sampled.
*
Finally, uncertainties from mapping choices and climatology choice also contribute to the overall uncertainty.
Clearly it doesn’t take any specific scientific expertise to understand what is being said here: there are large uncertainties both in the accuracy of the data that was collected and in the lack of any data at all for large areas of the oceans and below 700 meters.
All of this supports my comments about ocean heat content: there is insufficient evidence to assert that global warming continues but has shifted to the oceans. One could say this **may **be true but there is no justification for saying that it **is **true. It is at best a hypothesis. It is instructive to note that astrology also rises to the level of hypothesis.
Yes, I recognize the differences. That said, as I pointed out with the ocean heat content study you cited, there is a great deal the layman can understand and critique about even the most scientific of studies.
Ender
C
CaptFun
Guest
RED highlight is MY emphasis. Quote is from Jesus.
That climate changes everyone knows. I was born in Chicago. The climate changes three times an hour sometimes.
Even here in Southern California … it changes … from fantastic to merely “nice”.
The current term “climate change” replaces the politically correct article of faith formerly known as “global warming” … which proved to be substantially less than global, mixed in with record cold snaps in some spots on “the globe”.
It was all man’s fault that it was this way in some folks’ view. And the remedy is always that the RIGHT people (i.e. the wrong people IMO) need even MORE power.
Did this Vatican envoy or other “religious source” cite any other quote of Jesus’ that bolsters this (IMO political) position?
If any here agree with this envoy … please insert such scripture here: ________________________________.
I’m stumped myself (creative as I am … even “for the sake of argument” I can’t come up with one. From Moses, Isaiah, Peter or Paul either).
Maybe some of the scriptures concerning stewardship could apply. But the one above reminding people about what they don’t know … from Jesus Himself … has some serious gravitas.
Even if the overall subject in context of John 3 concerned the need for people to be “born again”…
On THAT score, it seems to be another in the "… my kingdom is not of this world." genre – and churchmen obsessing about the weather by contrast strikes me as a bit more worldly-- than a high-minded call to conservation or temperance.
That said, I’m OK with recycling, hygiene, stewardship, and moderation of lifestyle (versus perpetual indulgence to the max). More than OK!
I’m a bit skeptical of the “settled science” stance (which sounds like a possible oxymoron to me … "DON’T investigate the controversy (anymore) " – just settle for the (politically correct
) science … of the moment. :nope:Tossing the word “Vatican” into a headline when it might just be a personal conviction of a guy who also HAPPENS to be a “Vatican Envoy” makes it sound as if it is some sort of “binding upon the faithful” pronouncement from the Pope or Holy See.
Which it would seem it is not. IMO.
As a faithful Catholic … am I a “Vatican Envoy” (of sorts)?
If so, I’d remind myself and others that some examples of “Biblical Climate Change” often involved prayer and the power of God.
Isaiah prays for (and gets) rain after a three year drought … 1 Kings 18:14 - 19:8
Jesus calms the storm Mark 4:35 - 41; Matt 8:23 - 27; Luke 8:22 - 25.
The closest to “climate change(s) are man’s fault …” I can come up with refer to the ten plagues of Egypt (per water pollution, darkness, hail, and biological anomalies). In THAT case it was the immorality of slavery and child murder and a suppression of religious freedom.
Slavery (not withstanding taxation and government mandates) is not a modern issue in the U.S.
The other two social (and spiritual) sins are not QUITE the things recommended against by those who are ** usually** quoted as publicly opposing so-called “climate change deniers”. < By their “denier” definition … probably me despite my explanations here.
Did the reporter edit OUT any spiritual references by the Vatican Envoy to make it a more juicy secular story with a “proper” political stance? Did the envoy not make any such references?
- Status