Pope Francis and science: Fast backward to dark ages?

anthropic: Millions of observations from weather balloons didn’t pick up the predicted hot spot, but now magically it appears. Tropospheric radiosondes have known problems, including incomplete coverage, and problems with drift. anthropic: Sorry, I’m going with the data. The historical radiosonde data is incomplete and of poor overall quality, so you can't exclude the possibility of the tropospheric hotspot based solely on unhomogenized radiosonde data. The cited studies could certainly be wrong, but you have to respond to the substance of the studies, not merely reject them out of hand. Zachriel

"Excuse me,Andy, while I go off and lick my wounds." Don't come back anytime soon. Andrew asauber

Ooooh My! That must be a terrible insult. Excuse me,Andy, while I go off and lick my wounds. You're too cruel. Apart from the minor point of your being unable to rebut my words. Never mind. You probably gave it your best shot - since it would be an impossible task. Axel

Z 55 Uh-huh. Millions of observations from weather balloons didn't pick up the predicted hot spot, but now magically it appears. Sorry, I'm going with the data. And the models predictions of more warming than actually occurred are public knowledge. Trying to pretend they aren't isn't honest. Just like the recent desperate attempt to change the back data to eliminate the last 18 years or so of no warming. I see no reason why excuses, data manipulation, and denial of the evidence should justify $40 to $100 trillion in costs. Especially when you consider that even the British MET Office now admits the sun has turned quiet and folks should prepare for bitterly cold winters. Brrr! You remember the Brits, right? You know, the folks whose children wouldn't know what snow is? LOL! anthropic

"Haves won that war a long time ago, and have now, through fathomless avarice, threatened the entire global economy" Scream louder, Chicken Little. I can't hear you. Andrew asauber

That all you got, Andrew? A spot of rather infantile name-calling. 'You're horrible because you're spouting politics.' Very disingenuous. I dilated upon the nature of giving in terms of the merits it reflects or does not reflect, and all you can do is peddle vapid cliches about class-warfare - as if it's of no consequence that your Haves won that war a long time ago, and have now, through fathomless avarice, threatened the entire global economy. You're shameless. Axel

"Do you really believe that you could be relied on to make regular, adequate contributions to the physical welfare of your less affluent compatriots, without the obligation of taxation?" This is how brainwashed you progs are. Giving is not about class warfare. But that's the issue y'all invariably demagogue, when giving is discussed. How about we discuss what the nature of giving is? That's the root of the issue, not your political knee-jerks. Andrew asauber

Well, it's like finks, isn't it, asauber. They should be sacked from the company if they didn't support the industrial action that won the workers a pay-rise. At the very least, not receive the pay-rise themselves. Some social obligations trump the fetish of a false freedom. Is the duty of parents to nurture and protect their children an offence against their freedom? No. Of course. Not. You are part of a society. A society in which your REAL freedom may have to be defended, particularly by infantrymen and tank crews, whose casualty rates are exceptionally high, men and women drawn from the class of people you would deny welfare to, even after closing down the companies they worked for, in pursuit of ever greater profits, most of which you will never need, moreover. The great-grandparents of many of those currently sleeping on the streets in the US would have fought in WWII. Ultimately, it was as much a fight to protect the US from attack that would have finally eventuated against the Nazis as it was the European countries. How would you like it if you'd suffered the horrors of that war 'at the sharp end', in the knowledge that the greedy and selfish would marginalise your quite near descendants to the point of utter destitution and life on the street. Many of the latter would have fought in less worthy causes to keep you comfortably off, and themselves, emerged psychologically-broken men and sometimes women? Those who complain about not being allowed to be free to give or not, would clearly be mot reluctant to give. Christ taught that we were to have contempt for money. As Francis put it: Our charity/selfless love (our passport to salvation) must reach a far a our pockets. Do you really believe that you could be relied on to make regular, adequate contributions to the physical welfare of your less affluent compatriots, without the obligation of taxation? Axel

"taxation enables us more easily to give" I think this is wrong. Giving requires a free act of the will, otherwise it's not giving. Taxation is the pretense that some use as their substitute for actual giving. It's a way of justifying their lack of giving, in a lot of cases. Andrew asauber

I've just Googled 'green revolution', and it sounds to me to have become the stuff of nightmares - and that's without any consideration of Monsanto's promising to usher in a new 'green revolution'. I've not been able to open Monsanto-related Google pages on the topic. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4994590.stm Axel

A good point, Silver. One would have to trust that Francis' promotion of Gospel Christian values would win over a substantial majority of the electorate, sufficient to prevent the politicians from doing the bidding of the 1%. The policies favoured by such a regenerate electorate would surely create synergies under God's approving gaze. Perhaps it's thinking along such lines that prompts Francis' at times, to seem self-contradictory in his strictures, as vjt indicates, although I notice that soon after publication of his Encyclical on the Environment he - for the first time, I believe - started to fulminate on the mega villainy of the multinationals. Incidentally, I don't believe 'the green revolution', however beneficial, could possibly render the precautionary principle redundant, as vjt seems to imply. Far from it. Axel

Axel

taxation enables us more easily to give

It's an interesting thought and I've considered that before. There is the problem, however, that we often end up involuntarily giving to unsavory causes and projects along with the good ones. Governments reflect someone's value-system and there's only a problem when they don't reflect our own (as is often the case for me in America, for example, unfortunately). If taxes went more generally to good causes, I would be glad to pay them. Silver Asiatic

Francis is anxious we don't think he favours any ideology, but what is an ideology. If we leave justice (which must precede considerations of charity) to the individual, in an enlightened society, we end up straining at a gnat, to swallow a camel', as is manifestly the status quo, after the ravages of decades of right-wing governments in the UK, and pretty much immemorially in the US. Christ's fulminations at the extortions from the poor by the politico-religious leaders of his day would indicate that there can be no society without an ideology; it is just a matter of whether it is greed, however opportunistic or systematised, natural to leaders of human societies, or antisocialist, or more inclusive and socialist. It parallels, well, is really an expression of politics, isn't it? As a missionary said when expelled from Indonesia for being 'political', some decades ago, 'No. If I'd 'kept my head down', that would have been political. That will be the judgment faced by prelates in South America who cosied up to the monstrous fascist caudillos, and deplored the systematic attempts of their betters lower down the pecking order, to succour the immiserated and oppressed, who tried to be a Father of the Poor. Pace InAyn Rand and her hapless acolyte, Thatcher, aka Baronness Lady Cardboard, there IS such as a thing as society, and there is no virtue in personalising gifts of charity/justice); taxation enables us more easily to give, without patting ourselves too heartily on the back - not allowing our 'left hand to know what our right hand is doing.' Taxation proportionate to income, (as recommended most ironically by Adam Smith) levied at source, would presumably mean that a large part of the public paid none, while the well-to-do would still be very well off indeed by the latter's standards. Axel

Sorry about that folks. I was in too much of a hurry to get other things done. In any case, I should have posited a spectrum of continua, extending from space-time to secular faith-knowledge to Judaeo-Christian faith-knowledge to physical light-Judaeo-Christian light. I think it may be encapsulated in C S Lewis' apothegm: “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” Axel

buffalo, I see a number of corresponding continua: time-space, secular faith-knowledge, Judaeo-Christian faith-knowledge, physical light-spiritual light; and that the major paradigm changers would have benefited from an interlocking of those continua, whether conscious or intuitive. Axel

buffalo, I see a number of corresponding continua: time-space, secular faith-knowledge, Judaeo-Christian faith-knowledge, physical light-spiritual light; and that the major paradigm changers would have benefited from their operating on the basis of those continua, whether consciously or intuitively. Axel

Catholicism cannot and should not stay out of science. They are inextricably linked. buffalo

anthropic: One, the models consistently overestimate warming. Actually, overall model projections are consistent with observation.

Marotzke & Forster, Forcing, feedback and internal variability in global temperature trends, Nature 2015: "The claim that climate models systematically overestimate the response to radiative forcing from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations therefore seems to be unfounded."

anthropic: Two, the models call for a hot spot in the tropical atmosphere which does not exist. The tropospheric tropical hotspot is not a signature of greenhouse warming, but is a function of the lapse rate. Observations are consistent with predictions.

Sherwood & Nishant, Atmospheric changes through 2012 as shown by iteratively homogenized radiosonde temperature and wind data, Environmental Research Letters 2015: "These results confirm those of the other newer studies, suggesting that tropospheric warming has indeed proceeded as expected in spite of the problems that earlier studies have had in detecting it."

anthropic: Three, the models predictions about atmospheric water vapor have been falsified. Apparently not.

Chung et al., Upper-tropospheric moistening in response to anthropogenic warming, PNAS 2014: "Here, we use a set of coordinated model experiments to confirm that the satellite-observed increase in upper-tropospheric water vapor over the last three decades is primarily attributable to human activities. This attribution has significant implications for climate sciences because it corroborates the presence of the largest positive feedback in the climate system."

Zachriel

Those who do not think that a gradual warming is anything to be alarmed about, certainly not justifying $40 to $100 trillion in costs that will kill and impoverish many millions, are not what I consider "warmists." Lukewarmists may be a better term. Heck, I myself am in that category. My only difference with some of them is that I think there is a good case that rising CO2 and a slight warming is not only not especially harmful, it is actually helpful for life. And I note you continue to skate around the key problems with warmism. One, the models consistently overestimate warming. Two, the models call for a hot spot in the tropical atmosphere which does not exist. Three, the models predictions about atmospheric water vapor have been falsified. Without the hot spot and the water vapor, the positive feedbacks necessary for warmist predictions of catastrophic warming fall flat. But given the money, power, and faith invested in alarmism, I fully expect this fallacy to be with us for quite some time, regardless of the evidence and the cost. anthropic

anthropic: Warmists are anyone who believes that catastrophe looms due to anthropogenic CO2. A lot of scientists think humans can adapt successfully to a warming climate, and while there will be damage and costs, catastrophe is not inevitable, even with significant warming. Guess you don't call them "warmists". anthropic: I’m absolutely certain that, if polled, the majority would affirm that CO2 itself is the problem, rather than the feedbacks. If you ask why there are seasons, many people will answer it is because the Earth is closer to the Sun. In any case, CO2 is the primary driver of the current global warming. Water vapor feedbacks are the inevitable consequence of changes in atmospheric CO2. CO2 is, therefore, the primary problem with regards to anthropogenic climate change. anthropic: Runaway greenhouse heating, a la Venus, has never happened despite a steadily brightening Sun and far higher CO2 levels in the past. Virtually no scientists think there will be a runaway effect as on Venus. Rather, the system will stabilize at a higher temperature dependent on greenhouse gas levels. Zachriel

Z: "If by “warmists”, you mean climate scientists, they are certainly aware, that’s why climate sensitivity is expressed as a doubling of CO2." Warmists are anyone who believes that catastrophe looms due to anthropogenic CO2. I'm absolutely certain that, if polled, the majority would affirm that CO2 itself is the problem, rather than the feedbacks. After all, how often are the assumed feedbacks mentioned in the media when these issues are raised? Not often, because that would lead to a discussion about hotspots and water vapor that warmists don't want to have. Runaway greenhouse heating, a la Venus, has never happened despite a steadily brightening Sun and far higher CO2 levels in the past. That in itself should tell us that feedbacks are a negative, dampening force, rather than a positive, reinforcing one. anthropic

antrhopic: Many warmists aren’t even aware that CO2 in itself is subject to diminishing effects; thus in itself cannot create the climatic catastrophe so often prophesied. If by "warmists", you mean climate scientists, they are certainly aware, that's why climate sensitivity is expressed as a doubling of CO2. antrhopic: But realists understand that the best evidence we have is that feedbacks are a net dampening effect. Actually, the Earth's climate see-saws between ice ages and periods with no ice caps. In any case, studies of historical climate change support a value of climate sensitivity in the range of 2-5°C. Zachriel

Given that the minimum estimated cost to fight climate change is $40 trillion, and other estimates are as high as $100 trillion, which will result in millions of extra deaths and tens of millions more in poverty, it is incumbent upon the warmists to prove their case. Many warmists aren't even aware that CO2 in itself is subject to diminishing effects; thus in itself cannot create the climatic catastrophe so often prophesied. Instead the assumption is made that climate feedbacks will multiply the effect of rising CO2 levels. But realists understand that the best evidence we have is that feedbacks are a net dampening effect. The Sun has brightened 30 percent over Earth's history, and CO2 levels have been an order of magnitude higher than today, yet runaway heat has not happened. Furthermore, the warmist "hot spot" and water vapor predictions, critical to their case, have been thoroughly falsified by observational data. The best theory I've heard that accounts for the dampening effect is the formation of thunderstorms in the tropics. As temps rise, more T storms build up, cooling the Earth by radiating heat into space as well as increasing albedo and raining. Anyway, the catastrophe models have failed repeatedly, and in the same direction: higher temps than actually occur. Honest folks would demand at a minimum accurate predictions before condemning so many millions to death and/or poverty. For a clear discussion of where warmists and skeptics differ -- no, it is NOT the warming impact of CO2 itself -- see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/26/the-skeptics-case/#more-57635 anthropic

Velikosky @48, it's all over the news. Do a Google News search. Here's where I got it from: Pope Francis Says Arms Manufacturers Can’t Call Themselves Christian Mapou

map ou: Pope Francis is now claiming that those who manufacture weapons are not Christians. How about the soldiers who use them? How about the Roman centurion whose servant Jesus healed? You have a link for that? velikovskys

"Why do you feel almost rancorous about it, asauber?" I don't. Andrew asauber

Why do you feel almost rancorous about it, asauber? Are you a disinterested commentator, or do you have some personal, financial interest in the issue, e.g. Shares in hydrocarbons? I believe I read recently than the weather seemed to have stabilised over the past 7 (or 12) years. Perhaps it was the depletion of the ozone layer. Anyway, apparently, the triple China Syndrome at Fukushima (each of the three reactors twice the size of Chernobyl) is apparently contributing a pink colour to the sky as far away as Alaska, as a result of a certain radioactive toxic contaminant. They are also talking about the seismic activity and tsunami having been caused by some demonic human activity called HAARP, aimed at changing the weather on a large scale. 'Some researchers have raised questions about the possible involvement of HAARP in major disasters like the earthquake in Haiti, Indonesian tsunami, and hurricane Katrina. Could these have been HAARP experiments gone awry? Might they even have been caused by rogue elements which gained control of this devastating technology. Of course disasters like this happen regularly on a natural basis, yet if you begin to research, there is some high strangeness around some of these disasters. The evidence is inconclusive, yet with the known and unknown major destructive capabilities of this weapon, serious questions remain.' ... from this site: http://www.globalresearch.ca/haarp-secret-weapon-used-for-weather-modification-electromagnetic-warfare/20407 Axel

"Perhaps he agrees with the vast majority of climate scientists that it is both real and problematic" Good thing science is evidence-based and not what-group-believes-what-based, so we can better judge these things. "It seems better to err on the side of caution" I agree. Let's have climate science produce some better evidence before we engage in the chicken-littleisms. Andrew asauber

Pope Francis is now claiming that those who manufacture weapons are not Christians. How about the soldiers who use them? How about the Roman centurion whose servant Jesus healed? IMO, the Pope should focus his attention on ridding the clergy of the child molesters and other perverts. What kind of men are these who don't like women? This is all very strange. We, the people of the world, are not stupid. And, for crying out loud, stop telling people that they need to confess to some priest in order to get their sins forgiven. That, too, is perverted. Mapou

Asaber: Well, the Pope isn’t the originator of the lie. But he is going along with it (Perhaps not fully aware? I like to give benefits of doubt where due) for exact reasons known only to him. Perhaps he agrees with the vast majority of climate scientists that it is both real and problematic, but then I like to give him the benefit of the doubt as well. But it is human nature to make errors in judgment. That I do know. The pope is not immune. All our best saints did the same. I agree, finite minds ,finite knowledge, and certainly I disagree with the Pope's view of birth control. Are you going along with it? It seems better to err on the side of caution, in addition those who claim nothing to see here are less convincing both in data and motivation. How are you so sure? velikovskys