WSJ: Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

[lynnvinc]

It’s not logical to deny what everyone can see you posted. You said “I (Lynn) think that’s actually what the skeptics had predicted and they are WAY WRONG compared to climate scientists”,

I then called you out but you denied what is clearly posted. I’ll repeat, SKEPTICS deny the IPCC models have been validated by measurement, but they don’t deny basic physics, nor do they claim the ability to predict nature at this time.

To be clear, you are aware a False Negative is proof the scientific model or the medical test is faulty and has failed the scientific method. With the IPCC, I expect in the future they will have new models with drastically different feedback modifiers and multipliers. The role of CO2 will be marginalized as other factors are better understood.

Please don’t postulate a strawman. Nobody is denying man impacts the environment. It’s the degree of impact vs natural variation that is in dispute. The climate scientists are hardly in agreement here with the CO2 multiplier pegged somewhere between 1.5 and 9.

The measured USHCN daily temperature data shows a decline in US temperatures since the 1930s. But before they released it to the public, they put it thorough a series of adjustments which changed it from a cooling trend to a warming trend.

Please back up your statement that most manipulation has been to lower recent temperature measurements.

The way Hansen/GISS ‘homogenized’ data to create the hockey stick* IS SCIENTIFIC FRAUD*. It’s fairly clear they will also lose his lawsuit as well.

Then it’s dishonest to make allusions that Hansen got something right, when he wasn’t even in the ballpark. His heatsink assumptions are useless based on current model postulations. It’s about like looking at a broken clock twice a day (at the time it broke), and then commend how it’s still reasonable accurate

Blah, blah, blah. I’m not reading your posts anymore .

 

[Ender]

I think we all agree GW has happened to some extent, and best guess (at 95% confidence) is that has been mainly caused by industrial GHG emissions.

The models were also at the 95% confidence level that warming would not stop for a period of 15 years. That (also?) turned out to be no more than an inaccurate guess.

JPII also made his 1st call to mitigate it that same year

Do you have a citation for this? It sounds doubtful to me.

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

You want to be careful with this argument inasmuch as there is a significant difference between prudential judgments and doctrines. If in fact something is a prudential judgment then, while we are obligated to give it serious consideration, unlike doctrines we are not obligated to accept it. If someone says we must feed the poor he is raising church doctrine, but if he says we must feed the poor by raising the minimum wage he is offering a prudential judgment, and no matter who “he” is we are not obliged to agree.Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles)Ender

I think I see your point.

I’ve often pointed out that the problem with abortion is that pro-abortion people fail to accept the fetus is a human being, a person; while the problem with AGW is not that we doubt people are harmed and dying from droughts, famines, floods, hurricanes, disease spread, food production failure (that’s obvious), but that the skeptics are claiming these are totally natural, not enhanced by AGW, and/or that GW is not even happening – they say there is no connection between their actions and those harms.

On the one hand the Church rightly points out that the fetus is a human being, a person. For instance we were all fetuses at one point and got born, so it is ridiculous and nonsensical to claim the fetus is just a blob of plasma. So killing the fetus or fertilized ovum is killing a human being. We are 100% sure the unborn are human beings (otherwise they’d be coming out as rabbits, etc) and that the abortion procedure kills them dead.

On the other hand, no one will deny people die from drought-induced famine, and these other harms that scientists claim are enhanced by AGW. We are 100% sure they are dead or harmed, but we are not 100% sure their particular deaths or harms are from that portion caused by AGW (and whether they would have died from the natural unenhanced disaster anyway), and we are not 100% sure AGW is happening (I think it is at 95% confidence, which means there is still a 5% chance it is not happening). The most we can say is that AGW is increasing the risk of these bad things happening and of people dying from them.

So it would probably be like a sin or flaw of reckless driving to persist in emitting high levels of GHGs. Many of us drive recklessly now an then and usually don’t get into accidents.

I personally could not live with myself without mitigating AGW, even if it were not at the 95% confidence level; it’s a matter of conscience for me. I don’t imagine one would go to Hell for failing to mitigate AGW…maybe purgatory for some time (but most of us are headed there anyway for a host of other reasons). However, I am thinking strong efforts to dissuade others from mitigating AGW might be a more serious matter. Let’s see if Pope Francis addresses that.

Also, there are many ways to mitigate AGW – 1000s of ways. It is not up to the Church to dictate policy, only to say we should be prudent in our actions in reducing harms and risk of harms to others. Mitigate AGW in some way or other, but also be prudent in how we mitigate, so as not to harm thru our mitigation practices (as Ridgerunner is wont to point out).

 

[Monkey1976]

I disagree. With off-the-shelf tech it is possible to reduce our fossil fuel consumption more than 75%. However, the main issue is logistics. Even if everyone is on board (but I think maybe only about 10% of the pop is on board) it will take several decades to implement all that and make the shift. We really should have started 25 years ago, or at least 15 years ago. We do need gov policy to encourage people to make the shift, but what we really need is a revitalization movement in which people themselves desire to make the shift and become engaged in making that shift.

Step one: Stop the Chicken Little routine. We’ve been hearing how “[THING] is going to kill us all!” for the better part of the past 100 years, and we’re still here.

There is also the issue of new, promising tech coming up that might bring us down to near-zero fossil fuel emissions over the ensuing decades.

Another thing that we’ve been hearing for a long time. “[AMAZING TECH] is only 20 years off!”. Some of these are plausible techs that could indeed be realized with sufficient funds - fusion, for example. Others are nothing but investment scams, like the infamous 100mpg carburetor.

We need to take a holistic view, however. Every product has a huge GHG component in resource extraction, shipping, and processing; manufacturing, wholesaling and retailing and shipping; shopping and disposal. That is why Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, and buy Recycled are not just kiddie things but a very serious measures that can accomplish a lot.

When it’s cheaper to buy a tomato grown within 100 miles than one grown in Peru at the grocery store, I’ll do so. Honestly, it’s not that people want to pollute as much as possible or be deliberately wasteful. It’s that most people are trying to balance immediate cost and immediate convenience with existing demands on time. Believe me - I’d love to get all of my meat and veg from local farmers. But I don’t have the time available to make that a realistic, everyday means of buying food.

Re alt energy I was reading about each state’s capacity for wind energy and the conservative figures have most states at around 30 percent of current energy demand. If that demand is reduced greatly thru efficiency and conservation and the “3 Rs,” then perhaps that figure could go up to 60%+. Solar could fill in much of the remaining gap. It often happens that on windless days there is more sun and vice-versa, and Germany has just come up with a utility company scale battery storage system for its high level of alt energy. (Consider that Germany does not have good sun or wind, but is forging ahead marvelously on alt energy.) There is other alt energy - tidal power, micro-hydel, etc.

Solar and wind are feel-good tech. The reality is that wind farms are about as inefficient as one can get in terms of energy output from a given parcel of land, and solar panel manufacture requires some fairly hazardous chemicals, while only being slightly more efficient than wind in terms of land utilization. Tidal and hydroelectric are limited by location. If one honestly wants to get off of fossil fuels in an efficient manner, then the only real choice is nuclear. It’s the most efficient in terms of both fuel usage and land usage, and it is classified as a “carbon-free” source by the IPCC.

At least since the 1970s energy crunch we should have been building passive solar homes and buildings with PV panel capacity/orientation. It is a crying shame we have not been doing that all along…at least for the sake of conserving resources for future generations, even tho we didn’t know much about AGW back then.

But it’s not too late to start. There’s a book A Golden Thread about 2500 years of passive solar construction. We can look to the ancients for wisdom and to God for his merciful help and inspiration.

We can also look at neighborhood power stations running Generation IV reactors. Several designs are small and safe enough that I’d be comfortable having one in my basement.

Seriously - the keys to getting people on board with reducing CO2 and GHG emissions is to show that it can be done without any loss of their present lifestyle (no “skyrocket” utility bills), and to stop the Chicken Little alarmism.

 

[Theo520]

On a positive note, the Antarctic Ice cover is now the most extensive in recorded history (since we had Satellites)
20.1 million square kilometers
wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/antarctic_sea_ice_extentx_zoomed_2014_day_261_1981-20101.png

 

[lynnvinc]

Quote:
JPII also made his 1st call to mitigate it that same year

Do you have a citation for this? It sounds doubtful to me.

Ender

MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE
WORLD DAY OF PEACE, 1 JANUARY 1990, “PEACE WITH GOD THE CREATOR, PEACE WITH ALL OF CREATION”

[Note that in 1990 we were often using the term “greenhouse effect” for what is now referred to as “global warming” or “climate change”; emphasis below is mine.]

II. The ecological crisis: a moral problem

1. Certain elements of today’s ecological crisis reveal its moral character…Unfortunately, it is now clear that the application of these discoveries in the fields of industry and agriculture have produced harmful long-term effects. This has led to the painful realization that we cannot interfere in one area of the ecosystem without paying due attention both to the consequences of such interference in other areas and to the well-being of future generations.

The gradual depletion of the ozone layer and the related “greenhouse effect” has now reached crisis proportions as a consequence of industrial growth, massive urban concentrations and vastly increased energy needs. Industrial waste, the burning of fossil fuels, unrestricted deforestation, the use of certain types of herbicides, coolants and propellants: all of these are known to harm the atmosphere and environment. The resulting meteorological and atmospheric changes range from damage to health to the possible future submersion of low-lying lands.

While in some cases the damage already done may well be irreversible, in many other cases it can still be halted. It is necessary, however, that the entire human community - individuals, States and international bodies - take seriously the responsibility that is theirs.

1. The most profound and serious indication of the moral implications underlying the ecological problem is the lack of respect for life evident in many of the patterns of environmental pollution. Often, the interests of production prevail over concern for the dignity of workers, while economic interests take priority over the good of individuals and even entire peoples. In these cases, pollution or environmental destruction is the result of an unnatural and reductionist vision which at times leads to a genuine contempt for man.

On another level, delicate ecological balances are upset by the uncontrolled destruction of animal and plant life or by a reckless exploitation of natural resources. It should be pointed out that all of this, even if carried out in the name of progress and well-being, is ultimately to mankind’s disadvantage.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_19891208_xxiii-world-day-for-peace_en.html

 

[sps49]

MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE
WORLD DAY OF PEACE, 1 JANUARY 1990, “PEACE WITH GOD THE CREATOR, PEACE WITH ALL OF CREATION”

[Note that in 1990 we were often using the term “greenhouse effect” for what is now referred to as “global warming” or “climate change”; emphasis below is mine.]

II. The ecological crisis: a moral problem

1. Certain elements of today’s ecological crisis reveal its moral character…Unfortunately, it is now clear that the application of these discoveries in the fields of industry and agriculture have produced harmful long-term effects. This has led to the painful realization that we cannot interfere in one area of the ecosystem without paying due attention both to the consequences of such interference in other areas and to the well-being of future generations.

The gradual depletion of the ozone layer and the related “greenhouse effect” has now reached crisis proportions as a consequence of industrial growth, massive urban concentrations and vastly increased energy needs. Industrial waste, the burning of fossil fuels, unrestricted deforestation, the use of certain types of herbicides, coolants and propellants: all of these are known to harm the atmosphere and environment. The resulting meteorological and atmospheric changes range from damage to health to the possible future submersion of low-lying lands.

While in some cases the damage already done may well be irreversible, in many other cases it can still be halted. It is necessary, however, that the entire human community - individuals, States and international bodies - take seriously the responsibility that is theirs.

1. The most profound and serious indication of the moral implications underlying the ecological problem is the lack of respect for life evident in many of the patterns of environmental pollution. Often, the interests of production prevail over concern for the dignity of workers, while economic interests take priority over the good of individuals and even entire peoples. In these cases, pollution or environmental destruction is the result of an unnatural and reductionist vision which at times leads to a genuine contempt for man.

On another level, delicate ecological balances are upset by the uncontrolled destruction of animal and plant life or by a reckless exploitation of natural resources. It should be pointed out that all of this, even if carried out in the name of progress and well-being, is ultimately to mankind’s disadvantage.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_19891208_xxiii-world-day-for-peace_en.html

Quoting “PEACE WITH GOD THE CREATOR, PEACE WITH ALL OF CREATION” does not answer the mail that has been piling up on your doorstop. If you don’t appreciate a critical review and instead seek solace behind the words of St John Paul II, first consider the outrageous and vitriolic claims and accusations you have made here and elsewhere. You wield his beautiful message like a blunt instrument to further your personal narrative.

 

[estesbob]

MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE
WORLD DAY OF PEACE, 1 JANUARY 1990, “PEACE WITH GOD THE CREATOR, PEACE WITH ALL OF CREATION”

[Note that in 1990 we were often using the term “greenhouse effect” for what is now referred to as “global warming” or “climate change”; emphasis below is mine.]

II. The ecological crisis: a moral problem

1. Certain elements of today’s ecological crisis reveal its moral character…Unfortunately, it is now clear that the application of these discoveries in the fields of industry and agriculture have produced harmful long-term effects. This has led to the painful realization that we cannot interfere in one area of the ecosystem without paying due attention both to the consequences of such interference in other areas and to the well-being of future generations.

The gradual depletion of the ozone layer and the related “greenhouse effect” has now reached crisis proportions as a consequence of industrial growth, massive urban concentrations and vastly increased energy needs. Industrial waste, the burning of fossil fuels, unrestricted deforestation, the use of certain types of herbicides, coolants and propellants: all of these are known to harm the atmosphere and environment. The resulting meteorological and atmospheric changes range from damage to health to the possible future submersion of low-lying lands.

While in some cases the damage already done may well be irreversible, in many other cases it can still be halted. It is necessary, however, that the entire human community - individuals, States and international bodies - take seriously the responsibility that is theirs.

1. The most profound and serious indication of the moral implications underlying the ecological problem is the lack of respect for life evident in many of the patterns of environmental pollution. Often, the interests of production prevail over concern for the dignity of workers, while economic interests take priority over the good of individuals and even entire peoples. In these cases, pollution or environmental destruction is the result of an unnatural and reductionist vision which at times leads to a genuine contempt for man.

On another level, delicate ecological balances are upset by the uncontrolled destruction of animal and plant life or by a reckless exploitation of natural resources. It should be pointed out that all of this, even if carried out in the name of progress and well-being, is ultimately to mankind’s disadvantage.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_19891208_xxiii-world-day-for-peace_en.html

Had the Holy Father known that there will be no warming for 18 of the next 25 years and that the numbers he was depending on have been falsified his opinion may very well have been different

 

[lynnvinc]

Step one: Stop the Chicken Little routine. We’ve been hearing how “[THING] is going to kill us all!” for the better part of the past 100 years, and we’re still here.

You’ve heard the story of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf,” and the moral is “don’t cry wolf when there isn’t any problem or you may lose credibility.” That’s why scientists are so reticent to make claims, striving as they are to avoid the false positive of making untrue claims.

However, the more important moral of that story, at least for the villagers (or us) is, “don’t disregard Chicken Little scares even if you’ve heard them many times and they’ve turned out to be false, or you may end up with one of them being true and get eaten up by the wolf…”

Also, they actually did find out the sky is falling : see “The Sky IS Falling” at realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/the-sky-is-falling/

Another thing that we’ve been hearing for a long time. “[AMAZING TECH] is only 20 years off!”…

I’ve been keeping a file of reports – some re efficiency or conservation, some re drawing down CO2 from the atmosphere, and some on generating energy without (much) fossil fuels.

There’s no silver bullet for AGW, only 1000s of mainly little things and a few big things. I like to promote “The Little Way of Environmental Healing” along the lines of St. Therese’s Little Way of Spiritual Childhood.

If we can engage in the little things, picking ourselves up from our frequent backsliding with God’s arms to help, we can eventually accomplish a lot.

Solar and wind are feel-good tech. The reality is that wind farms are about as inefficient as one can get in terms of energy output from a given parcel of land, and solar panel manufacture requires some fairly hazardous chemicals, while only being slightly more efficient than wind in terms of land utilization.

I disagree. Green Mountain told me they could put a wind-generator on a farm, pay rent to that farmer, and the farmer could farm right up the its base. That’s what they’re doing in Germany.

There may be hazardous chemicals involved in solar panel production, but it is only a one-time thing, compared to oil to run cars, which is an on-going thing involving tremendous hazards and pollution around the world, not to mention AGW. Harms from coal are just as egregious.

We get 43% of our electricity from solar and the rest from wind. There is increasing tech to store grid power in batteries if the grid gets way too much alt energy beyond demand at slow times. Germany is just in process of starting that, see businessgreen.com/bg/news/2370677/germany-charges-forward-with-opening-of-europes-largest-grid-battery-plant.

America could get a good portion of its energy from alt energy sources. Another portion might come from 2nd and 3rd generation biofuels. Along with efforts at efficiency and conservation, that should just about do it.

Then there are possibilities for drawing down CO2 - biochar, peridotite, carbon nitride, and some experiments Lawrence Livermore Lab is doing with sea water… These are successful at small scales and they are working on getting them to work at larger scales that really make a difference.

I’m not necessarily opposed to nuke, but I think we should do as much as possible with alt energy and efficiency/conservation first and maybe even later find out we don’t need nuke.

But if we do have nuke, an issue is that nuke has to run continuously. We had a ComEd guy come to our parish environmental group up in IL and explain it to us. It needs peaking plants (for ComEd that means coal-burning) for high demand times. About 25% of their energy is from coal-burning, 75% from nuke.

One thing they could do is increase the nuke power and store the extra nuke energy during off hours in a hydel reservoir or other storage system. When I mentioned EVs the ComEd guy got all excited and said if enough people had EVs and were charging them at night, they’d be able to cut costs of their electricity in half!

Seriously - the keys to getting people on board with reducing CO2 and GHG emissions is to show that it can be done without any loss of their present lifestyle (no “skyrocket” utility bills)…

I guess the real key is getting people to believe me and others like the Rocky Mountain (energy efficiency) Institute who say it can be done, saving money, saving the earth, with no loss to present lifestyle or productivity. And inspiring them to give it the ole heave-ho try.

 

[lynnvinc]

Quoting “PEACE WITH GOD THE CREATOR, PEACE WITH ALL OF CREATION” does not answer the mail that has been piling up on your doorstop. If you don’t appreciate a critical review and instead seek solace behind the words of St John Paul II, first consider the outrageous and vitriolic claims and accusations you have made here and elsewhere. You wield his beautiful message like a blunt instrument to further your personal narrative.

Truly sorry if I’ve offended you. I tend to get over-zealous.

The poster asked for a source, so I provided it.

 

[RGCheek]

And the reason it is more expensive is that we use fossil carbon to make biomass.

Well, not necessarily. Razor grass doesn’t require any fertilizer.

This is exactly why biodiesel is a fraud – we’re using fossil oil to produce biomass which we then turn into oil. It’s only viable because the state taxes/subsidizes biofuels differently than fossil fuels.

At the moment. Right now it is only proven to be feasible, but it demonstrates that these resources are renewable, it is only a matter of whether the costs will sustain the manufacturing of petroleum from biomass.

I would want to be that optimistic. Particularly given the amount of bureaucratic red tape the developers have to put up with.

Well NASA doesn’t have a problem with LENR

coldfusionnow.org/nasa-lenr-aircraft-and-spaceplanes/

A company called Blacklight has had third party tests published, successful patent applications and is going to be selling power generating units very soon. Brillouin is also close to selling a commercial product, at least they claim so.

Only time will tell, but I don’t think NASA is being blindly optimistic.

 

[lynnvinc]

Well, not necessarily. Razor grass doesn’t require any fertilizer.

At the moment. Right now it is only proven to be feasible, but it demonstrates that these resources are renewable, it is only a matter of whether the costs will sustain the manufacturing of petroleum from biomass.

I’m with you on 2nd generation of biofuels. I was totally against food-crops-into-biofuels from the get-go, esp when there are starving people around the world. I also understand the tremendous amount of energy and resources that go into industrial agriculture – oil, water, energy to pump the water, etc. As it is we are headed for “peak food” along with “peak oil”…unless perhaps we can find some alt energy source to continue our industrial agricultural practices. Maybe 2nd gen biofuels that don’t use up hardly any additional energy, maybe some EV farm equipment, and/or perhaps hydrogen fuel powered equipment, once hydrogen fuel becomes cost effective and is not derived from huge fossil fuel burning (name removed by moderator)uts.

One of the things I thought of in our town: Plants, shrubs, and trees grow like weeds and they have yard waste pick up every 5 weeks. They grind it up to use as mulch, but how about turning it into biofuel, or better yet biochar, that would help draw down CO2, esp since it is already being hauled to a central location anyway, regardless of what becomes of it. Pyrolysis (to make biochar) burns biomass in a way that doesn’t release hardly any CO2, leaving a very carbon-rich charcoal and some biofuel to boot – see biochar-international.org/

And there’s much more biomass around here for biochar. Homeland Security had started aerial spraying of herbicide along the Rio Grande to kill of Carrizo cane (an invasive species that even environmentalists don’t like) – the problem is smugglers use it as cover – but Laredo folks protested the spraying bec of the health effects and it was stopped. The USDA and scientists are now working on biological controls, etc. But I’m thinking why not let it grow, take some mobile pyrolysis biochar units down there and turn it into biochar, which can be given or sold to farmers as a soil amendment (it increases crop productivity a lot).

I also have this idea of growing moringa trees, which don’t require fertilizer, can grow in poor soils and drought or flood conditions, but only in areas that don’t get frequent killing freezes. We do get freezes about once in 5 or so years, and the moringa dies down to the ground, but then springs right back up to 30 or 40 or more feet within a year, growing straight up and not taking much space. Its fruit (drumsticks) and leaves are highly nutritious, high in iron and calcium and great for poverty-stricken areas in Africa. It also increases milk for cows and lactating mothers. See treesforlife.org/

And, I’m thinking, this would be a great feed stock for biochar and/or biofuel… Its seeds can also be used for biofuel.

It is an invasive species, but it only spreads by dropping seeds, so it can be controlled.

I do have to say about biofuel and biochar, however, that Biofuel Watch (biofuelwatch.org.uk/) has some problems with it…like soot flying around as they transport it (maybe it can be watered down and well-covered). I know they are against the idea of using fossil-fuel intensive biofuel (like corn biofuel) as carbon off-sets; I think that’s their main gripe.

RE airplanes, maybe they can also use hydrogen fuel as our spaceships do, emitting only H2O…if we can use some non-fossil-fuel way to create enough hydrogen fuel cost effectively. They are probably working on that.

 

[Monkey1976]

You’ve heard the story of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf,” and the moral is “don’t cry wolf when there isn’t any problem or you may lose credibility.” That’s why scientists are so reticent to make claims, striving as they are to avoid the false positive of making untrue claims.

What’s missing in the AGW panic is what the conditions are for it to be false. EVERYTHING is being called evidence of AGW. Warmer temperatures? AGW. Cooler temperatures? AGW. Massive storms? AGW. Near-silent hurricane season? AGW. Decreasing pack ice? AGW. Record levels of ice? AGW. Jellyfish washing up on the beach? AGW. Missing pickles on my burger at the drive-thru? AGW. It’s ridiculous. If “climate science” wants to be taken seriously, it needs to provide conditions under which the hypothesis is false. 20 years ago, that was a warming halt longer than 10 years. We passed that mark, and now we’re told that the “pause” is actually more proof of AGW. That’s not science - that’s ideology.

However, the more important moral of that story, at least for the villagers (or us) is, “don’t disregard Chicken Little scares even if you’ve heard them many times and they’ve turned out to be false, or you may end up with one of them being true and get eaten up by the wolf…”

So far, it seems that the AGW wolf has wandered off with his pals nuclear war and ice age. We’ve got no atmospheric heating for the past couple decades - which we were repeatedly told was IMPOSSIBLE - and the supposed explanation is that the heat is magically bypassing the atmosphere and ocean surface and getting stored in the deep ocean without mixing. In other words, IR radiation is apparently ignoring all CO2 and not interacting with water until it’s more than a couple kilometers deep. For there to be actual heat transfer from the atmosphere and surface to the deep ocean, there would have to be a higher heat content above the bathypelagic zone. That’s basic thermodynamics.

Also, they actually did find out the sky is falling : see “The Sky IS Falling” at realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/the-sky-is-falling/

Interesting. Now CO2 causes cooling. Is there anything this magical gas of doom can’t do?

I disagree. Green Mountain told me they could put a wind-generator on a farm, pay rent to that farmer, and the farmer could farm right up the its base. That’s what they’re doing in Germany.

That would be the policy that Economic Minister Sigmar Gabriel said was “on the verge of failure” just a few months ago. As far as being able to “farm right up to the[sic] its base”, sure - so long as you don’t mind ice, dead birds, or broken parts falling on you, and don’t want to build anything else anywhere near it. Let’s say they put the most powerful turbine currently built on that farm - the MHI Vestas V164-8.0MW. With a rotor diameter of 164m, it has a danger zone with a diameter of almost 400m, centered on the base. For it to generate power efficiently, there also have to be no structures within a radius of ~1.6km (10 rotor diameters) in any direction. That’s over 10km^2 - almost 2500 acres - for a single turbine that under ideal conditions is capable of 8MW. Cover that same area in solar panels, and you have a peak generating capacity of almost 1GW. In comparison, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, the most powerful nuclear power plant in the US - in fact, the most powerful US electrical plant of any kind - could fit in that same area almost twice over (including waste pools and parking lots), generating nearly 10GW from the same land area that is required for that single 8MW turbine.

There may be hazardous chemicals involved in solar panel production, but it is only a one-time thing, compared to oil to run cars, which is an on-going thing involving tremendous hazards and pollution around the world, not to mention AGW. Harms from coal are just as egregious.

Actually, most “green” technologies do a LOT more damage in their manufacture. Those batteries? Massive strip-mining (powered by fossil fuels), hideously dangerous and nasty refinement process (powered by fossil fuels, produces horribly dangerous chemical waste), and a constant need of replacement. On average, just the building building of a single Prius releases more GHG and pollution than operating a well-maintained SUV for 20 years.

I’m not necessarily opposed to nuke, but I think we should do as much as possible with alt energy and efficiency/conservation first and maybe even later find out we don’t need nuke.

Why immediately disregard something that’s carbon-neutral, insanely efficient in its use of both land area and fuel, FAR safer than “alt energy sources”, stands on its own financially. and is ALREADY HERE? “Alt” sources are still making promises about how good they’ll be “in a few years”, require massive government subsidies (not just tax breaks, but actual subsidies) to be competitive, and kill more people per year than nuclear.

But if we do have nuke, an issue is that nuke has to run continuously. We had a ComEd guy come to our parish environmental group up in IL and explain it to us. It needs peaking plants (for ComEd that means coal-burning) for high demand times. About 25% of their energy is from coal-burning, 75% from nuke.

“Peaking” plants are even more necessary for wind and solar - witness Germany’s big battery buy.

I’m sorry, but so far, all wind and solar generating devices really do is give people a chance to show off how “green” they are while passing the cost along to everyone else.

 

[estesbob]

MESSAGE OF HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE
WORLD DAY OF PEACE, 1 JANUARY 1990, “PEACE WITH GOD THE CREATOR, PEACE WITH ALL OF CREATION”

[Note that in 1990 we were often using the term “greenhouse effect” for what is now referred to as “global warming” or “climate change”; emphasis below is mine.]
II. The ecological crisis: a moral problem

1. Certain elements of today’s ecological crisis reveal its moral character…Unfortunately, it is now clear that the application of these discoveries in the fields of industry and agriculture have produced harmful long-term effects. This has led to the painful realization that we cannot interfere in one area of the ecosystem without paying due attention both to the consequences of such interference in other areas and to the well-being of future generations.

The gradual depletion of the ozone layer and the related “greenhouse effect” has now reached crisis proportions as a consequence of industrial growth, massive urban concentrations and vastly increased energy needs. Industrial waste, the burning of fossil fuels, unrestricted deforestation, the use of certain types of herbicides, coolants and propellants: all of these are known to harm the atmosphere and environment. The resulting meteorological and atmospheric changes range from damage to health to the possible future submersion of low-lying lands.

While in some cases the damage already done may well be irreversible, in many other cases it can still be halted. It is necessary, however, that the entire human community - individuals, States and international bodies - take seriously the responsibility that is theirs.

1. The most profound and serious indication of the moral implications underlying the ecological problem is the lack of respect for life evident in many of the patterns of environmental pollution. Often, the interests of production prevail over concern for the dignity of workers, while economic interests take priority over the good of individuals and even entire peoples. In these cases, pollution or environmental destruction is the result of an unnatural and reductionist vision which at times leads to a genuine contempt for man.

On another level, delicate ecological balances are upset by the uncontrolled destruction of animal and plant life or by a reckless exploitation of natural resources. It should be pointed out that all of this, even if carried out in the name of progress and well-being, is ultimately to mankind’s disadvantage.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_19891208_xxiii-world-day-for-peace_en.html

This is a good example of the difference between church teaching and provincial judgment. Ignoring for the purpose of this discussion the fact the pope was relying on flawed data what we see in this statement is the pope’s concern for mitigating climate change and other destructive actions that affect the environment.

But we don’t see is the pope offering solutions to the problem We don’t, for instance , see is the pope endorsing massive new taxes and regulations to bring this about. The former is church teaching. The latter is a matter of Prudential judgment

 

[Ender]

The gradual depletion of the ozone layer and the related “greenhouse effect” …

You assert that “greenhouse effect” as JPII used it here means the same as AGW, but that seems doubtful as AGW has nothing to do with the depletion of the ozone layer, so either the pope had no understanding of AGW … or he meant something else.

…massive urban concentrations and vastly increased energy needs. Industrial waste, the burning of fossil fuels, unrestricted deforestation, the use of certain types of herbicides, coolants and propellants: all of these are known to harm the atmosphere and environment.

This is a generalized opposition to many forms of pollution and poor conservation practices; it is not particular to AGW.

The most profound and serious indication of the moral implications underlying the ecological problem is the lack of respect for life evident in many of the patterns of environmental pollution.

Again, a generalized opposition to pollution.

The document you cited was published in 1990. Here is another reason not to take it as support of AGW: “they reached 95% confidence on AGW back in 1995”. The scientific community didn’t reached near certainty until 1995; I’m doubtful that JPII reached it before they did.

Ender

 

[lynnvinc]

This is a good example of the difference between church teaching and provincial judgment. Ignoring for the purpose of this discussion the fact the pope was relying on flawed data what we see in this statement is the pope’s concern for mitigating climate change and other destructive actions that affect the environment.

Yes, the data was “flawed” in that it didn’t account for all the harms of AGW (we didn’t really know much about AGW tipping points into a very life-hostile environment), and the science had not yet reached 95% confidence, which it did 5 years later, and has gone onto become exceedingly robust with proof for AGW from many different angles.

But it’s ridiculous to blame JPII and climate scientists back then for not knowing what would be found out in the future, expecting them to be prophets, or something.

It’s good tho that BXVI and Pope Francis have kept up with the science and the call to mitigate AGW.

But we don’t see is the pope offering solutions to the problem We don’t, for instance , see is the pope endorsing massive new taxes and regulations to bring this about. The former is church teaching. The latter is a matter of Prudential judgment

And you won’t see me endorsing such either. I’m more interested in what will be effective without harming people, and I don’t think “Cap & Trade” will be effective, except to line the fossil fuel industry’s pockets even more. (Such a scheme has been somewhat effective for reducing narrow pollution issues, such as SO2 and CFC emissions, however.)

My thinking is that first and foremost we need a massive revitalization movement of people becoming aware of the AGW problem and threats, then doing something about it. Ultimately our national energy policy comes down to the cracks around our windows, as Hunter Lovins famously said. I’m hoping the Climate March will be the beginning of such a movement.

As for gov policy, I would favor just taking away all subsidies and tax-breaks from the fossil fuel industry and making them pay for any military support given (which amounts to corporate welfare), keeping tax-breaks for alt energy.

Since that is impossible – considering that the fossil fuel industries have paid for most of the policos, Republican AND Democrat – the policy I would favor (if any) is “Fee & Dividend,” in which a fee is placed on every barrel of oil and ton of coal extracted from the earth or coming into port, then ALL of that money being divvied equally among all Soc Sec card holders in the country – sort of the way taxpayers got a $200 tax rebate during the Bush years. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_and_dividend

Then people could use that monthly dividend money to pay their somewhat higher energy bills and/or use it to become energy/resource efficient/conservative and perhaps go on alt energy when feasible and really be on the road to prosperity.

We need as many people as possible to get behind this, or else we may end up with an ineffective and harmful “Cap & Trade,” so please write your reps to favor “Fee & Dividend.”

Fee & Dividend is also a more fair way for people like myself. We have 100% alt energy electricity (43% solar, 57% wind) and only drive our Volt less than 6,000 miles a year, 80% of that on alt energy electric charges, and our I.C.E. minivan for hauling things less than 1000 miles a year. However, on April 15th we have to pay (thru our tax dollars subsidizing fossil fuels) for others’ profligate fossil fuel energy use that harms and kills in so many ways. I think “fee & dividend” is a somewhat fairer solution.

 

[Theo520]

Had the Holy Father known that there will be no warming for 18 of the next 25 years and that the numbers he was depending on have been falsified his opinion may very well have been different

I’m a ‘denier’ and don’t see anything wrong with what the Pope said, he wasn’t targeting CO2 as the culprit

You’ve heard the story of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf,” and the moral is “don’t cry wolf when there isn’t any problem or you may lose credibility.” That’s why scientists are so reticent to make claims, striving as they are to avoid the false positive of making untrue claims.

However, the more important moral of that story, at least for the villagers (or us) is, “don’t disregard Chicken Little scares even if you’ve heard them many times and they’ve turned out to be false, or you may end up with one of them being true and get eaten up by the wolf…”

Also, they actually did find out the sky is falling : see “The Sky IS Falling” at realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/the-sky-is-falling/

Ohh, the irony in the link you posted.
The IPCC models dictated we would see increased heating in the upper atmosphere. Now the papers are ignoring such and trying to explain the measured cooling.

I guess the real key is getting people to believe me and others like the Rocky Mountain (energy efficiency) Institute who say it can be done, saving money, saving the earth, with no loss to present lifestyle or productivity. And inspiring them to give it the ole heave-ho try.

You won’t be believed until you stop the chicken little routine and you start engaging in serious debate, rather than deflection when you are called out on specific points.

 

[lynnvinc]

You assert that “greenhouse effect” as JPII used it here means the same as AGW, but that seems doubtful as AGW has nothing to do with the depletion of the ozone layer, so either the pope had no understanding of AGW … or he meant something else.

Actually he seems to have had a very deep knowledge beyond our common lay knowledge of the issues.

There IS a complex relationship between ozone destruction and the enhanced greenhouse effect (global warming) – aside from many people at the time who were not paying much attention to the issues confusing the two.

First of all they are both about global atmospheric problems of great harm.

2nd, CFC and other ozone destroying molecules are also very potent GHGs (much more potent than CO2). As they wend their way up in the atmosphere, before getting to the stratosphere where they destroy our life-protective ozone layer, they contribute to global warming as GHGs.

3rd, cold air in the stratosphere causes more ozone destruction, and the enhanced greenhouse effect, while causing greater warming in the lower atmosphere, leads to greater cooling in the stratosphere (i.e. the increasing GHG belt in the atmosphere doesn’t allow as much heat to escape our earth system as before).

See ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html#.VCG73k0tDIU

I’m not sure if JPII understood all that – he was, however, a very well educated and intelligent person – but I do know he had the expertise of the Pontifical Academy of Science at hand to help him understand the issues. He probably had one or more of the experts there read over his statement to make sure it was correct.

The document you cited was published in 1990. Here is another reason not to take it as support of AGW: “they reached 95% confidence on AGW back in 1995”. The scientific community didn’t reached near certainty until 1995; I’m doubtful that JPII reached it before they did.

Ender

I don’t think he would have felt compelled to reached near certainty on a very dangerous life issue before calling for mitigation. I know I started seriously mitigating in 1990. Those concerned about life on earth would be striving to avoid the false negative of failing to address true catastrophic problems. We don’t need 95% proof we are causing grave harms before we start to mitigate those harms. Would a mother feed something to her child if it was only 94% certain it would poison the child? Would we not seek a 2nd opinion if the doc comes back and says test only shows 90% confidence that the lump is cancerous, so come back in a few years to see if the test gets up to 95%?

OTOH, even 99.99% confidence may not be enough for the nay-sayers. They probably wouldn’t accept AGW and start to mitigate it even if the clouds were part and God Himself were to shout down to earth in a deep thunderous voice, “Mitigate anthropogenic global warming or else…”

I wonder if they’d be saying, “God isn’t a scientist, what does He know?”

 

[estesbob]

catholicvote.org/why-americans-have-a-hard-time-accepting-climate-science/

 

[lynnvinc]

catholicvote.org/why-americans-have-a-hard-time-accepting-climate-science/

Well, that now proves that Catholic Vote is pro-death and that they are not at all anti-abortion as they claim, but are into using the abortion issue for some other political goals. Unborn babies being tossed around for political gain. Shame on them.