Vatican envoy: 'no further room for denial' on climate change [CC]

[weller2]

He knows this. You’re beating your head against a wall, but thanks for posting this.

Heh. If anyone is beating their head against the wall, it’s your faction. Here’s your basic problem:

1. GDP grows exponentially → energy demand grows exponentially → carbon extraction and CO2 emission grows exponentially. Assuming 3.5% growth, it means that extraction should double every 20 years.
2. The amount of total fossil carbon on the planet is Q.
3. The amount of economically extractable fossil carbon is, let’s say very generously, Q/2. That corresponds to about 2400ppm CO2.
4. The amount of carbon which can be burned without causing a climatic catastrophe is, let’s also be generous, Q/4 (1200ppm). (In reality, Q/8 or 600ppm is probably closer). Climate catastrophe being nothing dramatic, rather something like a sea level rise which permanently floods trillions of dollars worth of economic infrastructure. For starters, a 1-2m sea level rise takes all the harbors in the world out of business. There was a bunch of studies into this done with DOD money, some of these are available in the open.
5. If global warming is not real, then the remaining resource base is Q/2. If global warming is real, then the remaining resource base is Q/4.
6. Since the resource demand grows exponentially and doubles every 20 years, expansion of resource base from Q/4 to Q/2 only buys you 20 more years of economic growth.
7. Expansion of the resource base does not change the fundamental fact that the economic system will encounter resource limits at some point.
8. If the economic system runs out of carbon without first being artificially throttled down and/or decarbonized, it will experience a violent collapse. See Limits to Growth, Hirsch Report (funded by DOE) and Bundeswehr (German military) peak oil study for a detailed discussion.

As I said, the party’s over, get over it.

 

[estesbob]

Heh. If anyone is beating their head against the wall, it’s your faction. Here’s your basic problem:

1. GDP grows exponentially → energy demand grows exponentially → carbon extraction and CO2 emission grows exponentially. Assuming 3.5% growth, it means that extraction should double every 20 years.
2. The amount of total fossil carbon on the planet is Q.
3. The amount of economically extractable fossil carbon is, let’s say very generously, Q/2. That corresponds to about 2400ppm CO2.
4. The amount of carbon which can be burned without causing a climatic catastrophe is, let’s also be generous, Q/4 (1200ppm). (In reality, Q/8 or 600ppm is probably closer). Climate catastrophe being nothing dramatic, rather something like a sea level rise which permanently floods trillions of dollars worth of economic infrastructure. For starters, a 1-2m sea level rise takes all the harbors in the world out of business. There was a bunch of studies into this done with DOD money, some of these are available in the open.
5. If global warming is not real, then the remaining resource base is Q/2. If global warming is real, then the remaining resource base is Q/4.
6. Since the resource demand grows exponentially and doubles every 20 years, expansion of resource base from Q/4 to Q/2 only buys you 20 more years of economic growth.
7. Expansion of the resource base does not change the fundamental fact that the economic system will encounter resource limits at some point.
8. If the economic system runs out of carbon without first being artificially throttled down and/or decarbonized, it will experience a violent collapse. See Limits to Growth, Hirsch Report (funded by DOE) and Bundeswehr (German military) peak oil study for a detailed discussion.

As I said, the party’s over, get over it.

The more things change the more things stay the same

sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/eft/eft21.htm

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think both sides in this issue are making far too much of the Vatican envoy’s message. Remember, this message was delivered to the World Health Assembly at the UN offices in Geneva. More importantly, this message was not delivered to the faithful as a form of instruction on doctrine. The Church is not asking for our assent. Another recent example of a Vatican communication like this was the series of communiques encouraging an opening of relations between the US and Cuba. Then, as now, the Church was not asking for our assent. There are Catholics in good standing right now who thought that action was a bad idea. That’s OK. They will not be excommunicated. They don’t even have to confess their disagreement as a sin. The need for US-Cuba relations will never become part of the catechism. I think the same is true of global warming. It will never become part of the catechism, and will never become an article of faith. So stopping worrying if you are against global warming theory. And stop crowing about this announcement if you are for it.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Don’t expect Americans to start caring about the environment anytime soon. Most pollution in the world comes from the United States, but they won’t lift a finger to fix it because they seemingly thing they have a right to pollute. Perhaps it’s time for some UN sanctions against the US like they did against Iran?

Excessive statement.

I realize proponents of MMGW believe CO2 emissions are the No. 1 hazard to life on earth, and that they come from fossil fuel use. But there are lots of other pollutants, and the U.S. is pretty strict about them as compared to the rest of the world, which isn’t.

Inasmuch as the U.S. produces about 25% of the world’s goods and services, I would like to see the UN attempt sanctions against the U.S. The UN would come unraveled very quickly as nations like Canada and Mexico, whose economies are practically the same as that of the U.S., ignored them.

And the U.S. isn’t the biggest CO2 emitter, either. China is, with India catching up.

 

[sps49]

Belief in optical properties of CO2. Belief.

Your Honor, the prosecution rests.

Yep, belief is the word, weller2. After years of working with lasers, reading various papers on those same CO2 optical properties, designing and participating in various experiments which exploit those same properties in the atmosphere, you may certainly call that a belief.

 

[sps49]

Heh. If anyone is beating their head against the wall, it’s your faction. Here’s your basic problem:

1. GDP grows exponentially → energy demand grows exponentially → carbon extraction and CO2 emission grows exponentially. Assuming 3.5% growth, it means that extraction should double every 20 years.
2. The amount of total fossil carbon on the planet is Q.
3. The amount of economically extractable fossil carbon is, let’s say very generously, Q/2. That corresponds to about 2400ppm CO2.
4. The amount of carbon which can be burned without causing a climatic catastrophe is, let’s also be generous, Q/4 (1200ppm). (In reality, Q/8 or 600ppm is probably closer). Climate catastrophe being nothing dramatic, rather something like a sea level rise which permanently floods trillions of dollars worth of economic infrastructure. For starters, a 1-2m sea level rise takes all the harbors in the world out of business. There was a bunch of studies into this done with DOD money, some of these are available in the open.
5. If global warming is not real, then the remaining resource base is Q/2. If global warming is real, then the remaining resource base is Q/4.
6. Since the resource demand grows exponentially and doubles every 20 years, expansion of resource base from Q/4 to Q/2 only buys you 20 more years of economic growth.
7. Expansion of the resource base does not change the fundamental fact that the economic system will encounter resource limits at some point.
8. If the economic system runs out of carbon without first being artificially throttled down and/or decarbonized, it will experience a violent collapse. See Limits to Growth, Hirsch Report (funded by DOE) and Bundeswehr (German military) peak oil study for a detailed discussion.

As I said, the party’s over, get over it.

Your model is operating on various assumptions, one of them that “all things being equal, then…” All things are not equal, so your crystal ball is better served as a paperweight then a philosophical blunt instrument.

 

[ucfengr]

Since we’ve determined scientifically that man controls the climate, I’d like to put in an order for 75 and sunny for the next 100 years.

 

[sps49]

Excessive statement.

Designed to be incendiary, no doubt. There must be a Disturbance In The Narrative to cause such a overt display of desperation.

 

[weller2]

Your model is operating on various assumptions, one of them that “all things being equal, then…” All things are not equal, so your crystal ball is better served as a paperweight then a philosophical blunt instrument.

And the things not being equal, are… ?

Come on, I want you to prove me wrong, it should be easy

 

[triumphguy]

Some elementary mistakes in logic I see repeated again and again.

Believing in anthropic climate change means we believe that people control the climate - wrong: humans create some changes in the climate.

Climate change = global warming. Wrong: Climate change could mean more rain and snow in certain areas.

The climate was warmer in the past and statistically speaking we are still essentially in an ice age, so a little global warming is good: Wrong: While true that the world was warmer in the past it does not mean that change back to the old norm would not be incredibly disruptive of current ecosystems and environments.

If the church is preaching climate change is wrong it must be in bed with the liberals. The Church is responding to the overwhelming evidence of climate change and the effects it will have, especially on the poor of the world.

The earth’s temperature has hardly risen in the last 15 years. The oceans’ temperature has.Last time I checked that was a majority of the earth’s surface.

Thousands of scientists oppose climate change. No they don’t.

Finally when olives grew in Germany and grapes in England the world’s population was tiny compared to today, nature was far less degraded, and pollution was comparatively non-existent: the earth was far more able to handle natural cyclical changes .

 

[sps49]

And the things not being equal, are… ?

Come on, I want you to prove me wrong, it should be easy

Please. Your model, and the outcomes you fancy, assumes exponential growth, assumptions on the economically extractable amount of fossil fuel, the amount of carbon that will cause catastrophic climate change, humans with no adaptation response, and your personal favorite, violent economic collapse. It is a case of broomstick stacking that is on par with the Drake equation, and just as meaningless.

 

[weller2]

Please. Your model, and the outcomes you fancy, assumes exponential growth

How do you envisage modern capitalism without exponential growth? It requires exponential growth to function, that’s the elephant in the room

assumptions on the economically extractable amount of fossil fuel,

But the exact amount of extractable carbon does not matter. All that matters is that the amount in the ground is limited, and the use is growing exponentially. Again, doubling the resource base only buys you 20 years – that’s the basic property of an exponential function. **All that AGW changes here is that the extractable amount decreases. **

humans with no adaptation response

Again, it’s the anti-AGW faction which claims that humans have no adaptation response and must keep burning carbon and growing infinitely pretending business as usual. Attempts to decarbonize economy are an example of an adaptation response. Attempts to limit population growth are an example of an adaptation response. And so on. Even abandoning the civilization and going back to mud huts would be an example of an adaptation response.

 

[ishii]

So you only like and choose to accept it when the Vatican speaks on and gets behind issues important to Republicans & other political conservatives? But otherwise the Vatican is wrong?

Sy Noe, I didn’t know the Pope was infallible when he speaks on the issue of global warming (oops, I mean “climate change”). And if, by “issues important to Republicans” you mean the right to life, sanctity of marriage, then yes that would be different from the climate change issue because they are settled. Would that the sanctity of life and marriage not just be “conservative” issues but also that liberal Democrats find them important too. (they don’t seem to).

Ishii

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How do you envisage modern capitalism without exponential growth? It requires exponential growth to function, that’s the elephant in the room

I’m not sure this is true. Granted, modern capitalism has operated with exponential growth up till now, only because it is possible. If constrained to eliminate this possibility it is not at all clear that capitalism could not evolve to something very similar to what it is now, except without much growth. Why would it have to collapse instead of adapt?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Sy Noe, I didn’t know the Pope was infallible when he speaks on the issue of global warming (oops, I mean “climate change”). And if, by “issues important to Republicans” you mean the right to life, sanctity of marriage, then yes that would be different from the climate change issue because they are settled.

Positions on the sanctity of life may use modern science to try to reinforce them. But science plays a minor supporting role in that debate. Even without modern science we have established doctrine on these issues going back to Aquinas and earlier - all without the benefit of modern science. That is the essential difference. It is not that the science is settled on life issues. It is that the science is irrelevant.

 

[estesbob]

So you only like and choose to accept it when the Vatican speaks on and gets behind issues important to Republicans & other political conservatives? But otherwise the Vatican is wrong?

So opposing abortion, homosexual marriage and forcing catholic employers to provide contraception for their employees are issues important only to republican Catholics?

I dont not know of a single Republican at disagrees with the Vatican that we need to protect the environment. the problem is those who try and parse Vatican statements on the environment into Vatican support for the massive tax and regulation schemes the left wants to impose on the rest of us to mitigate the “problem”

 

[grotto]

Sy Noe, I didn’t know the Pope was infallible when he speaks on the issue of global warming (oops, I mean “climate change”). And if, by “issues important to Republicans” you mean the right to life, sanctity of marriage, then yes that would be different from the climate change issue because they are settled. Would that the sanctity of life and marriage not just be “conservative” issues but also that liberal Democrats find them important too. (they don’t seem to).

Ishii

---

But Ishii … the people can be persuaded to part with their coins and carry signs so more $ can be dropped into the black hole IF we can defend against global warming (oops, climate change)! Any casual comment coming from the general direction of an important person can be exploited to further the cause. As an example, flooding in Texas is being affected by the flooding of “bio systems”. Know what that is? Sewers! Doesn’t it sound grand though?“bio systems”. Is this due to global warming or climate change? Maybe its due to neglected repair or enough “bio systems”.

 

[sps49]

How do you envisage modern capitalism without exponential growth? It requires exponential growth to function, that’s the elephant in the room

…and the use is growing exponentially.

Again, it’s the anti-AGW faction which claims that humans have no adaptation response and must keep burning carbon and growing infinitely pretending business as usual. Attempts to decarbonize economy are an example of an adaptation response. Attempts to limit population growth are an example of an adaptation response. And so on. Even abandoning the civilization and going back to mud huts would be an example of an adaptation response.

There are no organisms that enjoy “pure” or “un-constrained” exponential growth throughout their lifecycle, so that is the basis of my rejection of your assertion. Your last assertion about the “anti-AGW faction” is similarly crippled. Perhaps you would consider starting a thread on the evils of un-constrained capitalism? If you can’t see evidence of adaptation, then no amount of dialog will be sufficient.

 

[Ridgerunner]

How do you envisage modern capitalism without exponential growth? It requires exponential growth to function, that’s the elephant in the room

Why does anybody think that?

Capitalism has been around for millenia. At times growth was exponential, and at times it wasn’t.

 

[weller2]

There are no organisms that enjoy “pure” or “un-constrained” exponential growth throughout their lifecycle, so that is the basis of my rejection of your assertion.

This is precisely the problem. The capitalism is bound by the laws of nature, but the nature of money demands that it should not.

Perhaps you would consider starting a thread on the evils of un-constrained capitalism?

I have laid out the reasoning in this thread, see post 6&7. If you want to start a polemic, open a new thread, and PM me.

If you can’t see evidence of adaptation, then no amount of dialog will be sufficient.

Of course I can see evidence of adaptation; windmills and solar panels are an adaptation.

That said, the anti-AGW argument presupposes that, if it were not for those pesky leftists, everyone would be able to continue to waste energy and drive proverbial SUVs. That’s simply not the case, AGW or not, as we are hitting fundamental geological constraints.

As I said, the party is over, prepare for an era of simpler living.