From Scripps:
Vatican Science Panel Calls Attention to the Threat of Glacial Melt
Pontifical Academy of Sciences working group of leading scientists to present report to Pope Benedict XVI
Scripps Institution of Oceanography / University of California, San Diego
A panel of some of the world’s leading climate and glacier scientists co-chaired by a Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego researcher issued a report today commissioned by the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences citing the moral imperative before society to properly address climate change.
The co-authors of “Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene” list numerous examples of glacial decline around the world and the evidence linking that decline to human-caused changes in climate and air pollution. The threat to the ways of life of people dependent upon glaciers and snow packs for water supplies compels immediate action to mitigate the effects of climate change and to adapt to what changes are happening now and are projected to happen in the future.
V. Ramanathan
“We are committed to ensuring that all inhabitants of this planet receive their daily bread, fresh air to breathe and clean water to drink as we are aware that, if we want justice and peace, we must protect the habitat that sustains us,” the authors write in a declaration prefacing the report. “The believers among us ask God to grant us this wish.”
Scripps Climate and Atmospheric Scientist Veerabhadran Ramanathan co-chaired the working group with Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen, formerly affiliated with Scripps and Lennart Bengtsson, former head of the European weather forecasting center. The group also included Nobel Laureate Carlo Rubbia, former director general of the CERN Laboratory. Among the rest of the 24 authors are Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University, Wilfried Haeberli from Switzerland, Georg Kaser from Austria and Anil Kulkarni from India, considered among the world’s foremost experts on glacial change. Former Scripps Director Charles Kennel and Scripps Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry Lynn Russell are also members of the working group.
“The widespread loss of snow and ice in the mountain glaciers is one of the most visible changes attributable to global climate change. The disintegration of many small glaciers in the Himalayas is most disturbing to me since this region serves as the water tower of Asia and since both the greenhouse gases and air pollutants like soot and ozone contribute to the melting,” said Ramanathan, who has been a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences since 2004.
Report authors met at the Vatican from April 2 to April 4, 2011 under the invitation of Chancellor Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo of the pontifical academy. The report was issued by the Vatican today and will be presented to Pope Benedict XVI.
Though scientists usually refrain from proposing action, Ramanathan said the circumstances warranted advancing suggestions from the working group. The authors recommend pursuit of three measures: immediate reduction of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions, reduction of concentrations of warming air pollutants such as soot, ozone, methane and hydroflurocarbons by up to 50 percent, and preparation to adapt to climate changes that society will not be able to mitigate.
Main Rongbuk Glacier on Mount Everest in 1921 and 2007. It experienced average vertical glacier loss of 101 meters (331 feet) between 1921 and 2008. Photo credits: (1921) Courtesy of Royal Geographical Society, (2007) Courtesy of Glacier Works.
The report title refers to the term coined by Crutzen to describe what is considered a new geologic epoch that began when the impacts of mankind on the planet became a major factor in environmental and climate changes.
“The recent changes observed in glacial behavior are due to a complex mix of causal factors that include greenhouse gas forcing together with large scale emissions of dark soot particles and dust in ‘brown clouds’, and the associated changes in regional atmospheric energy and moisture content, all of which result in significant warming at higher altitudes, not least in the Himalayas,” the authors write.
“Changes of mountain glaciers all around the world are rapid and impacts are expected to be detrimental, particularly in the high mountains of South America and Asia,” said Kaser, of the Institute for Meteorology and Geophysics at the University of Innsbruck. “Yet, our understanding about glacier changes in these regions is still limited and ambitious and joint efforts are required to respond to these problems. With its report, the pontifical academy contributes considerably to raising awareness.”
“Glaciers are one of our most visible evidences of global climate change,” added Thompson. “They integrate many climate variables in the Earth system. Their loss is readily apparent and they have no political agenda. Glaciers remind us of the stunning beauty of nature and in turn the urgency of doing everything in our power to protect it.”
The authors conclude: “We appeal to all nations to develop and implement, without delay, effective and fair policies to reduce the causes and impacts of climate change on communi¬ties and ecosystems, including mountain glaciers and their watersheds, aware that we all live in the same home. By acting now, in the spirit of common but differentiated responsibility, we accept our duty to one another and to the stewardship of a planet blessed with the gift of life.”
# # #
D Matteson says: “I just finished redirecting my wife’s monthly Catholic Church contribution to the Anthony Watts – surfacestations.org fund.”
Clearly the Church has little claim to any scientific authority. (I assume you mean the Roman Catholic Church. There are other Catholic Churches.) Somebody said, “By their fruits you shall know them.” (no pun intended). That applies to more than the Church. It applies to Warmist output like the infamous 10-10 terrorist “No Pressure” video, and all that will follow if they are not defeated.
Like Sam the Skeptic, I have a (left) foot in both camps. As soon as I saw this I thought it would be a Guardianesque pop at the Catholic church, and lo…..was it so. As a denialist, I can’t agree with their conclusions, but I presume you’ll give the same treatment to other faiths ‘pontificating’, no names etc….
Good thing that Vatican is interested in doing a green act. I just hope that he or his designers will be interested in window tint products that can help stop up to 80% of all solar energy coming through windows which is very helpful in our home.
Kylie, the narrow, Gothic-arched window– and thick, semi-opaque stained glass on metre-thick stone walls may do the job as well 🙂
I would not use the case of Galileo to criticize the Catholic Church. The Inquisition nailed Galileo. By the time of Galileo, the Inquisition was an autonomous organization within the Church that did pretty much whatever pleased it.
Climate change is the new superstition and the Vatican wants a piece of the action.
Peter Kovachev says:
May 9, 2011 at 9:56 am …
Interesting comment. In the perfect world, I hold that there is no division between science and religion, since ostensibly science is to avail the truth by a set of tools and religion desires to seek the truth. They are perfectly compatible.
I refer to OPUS MAJUS by Roger Bacon in 2 respects: 1) in its language and 2) in its characterizations of obstacles to the truth.
1) Bacon, a Catholic Monk, was the first western scientist, who among other things introduced us to the study of optics. He did so without a lexicon with words such as “transparent” and “opaque” and “back body” and “reflective”. Instead used terms familiar to him, respectively “Graceful” and “sinful” and “evil” and “hypocritical”.
How could he describe new ideas any differently without today’s dictionary. He had what he had as a language. He was a true genius. It is improper that we retroactively harshly criticize the learned of old with the advantage of our aggregated knowledge of now.
2) Bacon’s 4 obstacles to truth:
translated:[the example of weak and unreliable authority; continuance of custom, regard to the opinion of the unlearned, and concealing one’s own ignorance, together with the exhibition of apparent wisdom]
This was in the 1200’s. Amazing guy.
Wondering Aloud says:
May 9, 2011 at 10:08 am
“I think those of you assuming that a report made for some clergy, which is all this is, will somehow become Catholic doctrine have a very poor understanding of the church.
The church is a mighty conservative institution in its own way. It is likely some eco-fanatics within the church are trying to move the church in a more green direction. It is EXTREMELY unlikely they will have any significan success.
The green movement hates humanity, you are more likely to see Obama as the nominee of the Libertarian party than to see the church join up with Greenpeace.”
Any support from the Church to the eco-maniacs is bad. You are undoubtedly correct regarding the any change in Church doctrine as it is reserved for only matters basic to the teachings of Jesus and the Faith. Many, many of the “rules” of the Church are, howver, NOT doctrine and the Pope only uses the term “We” when making pronouncements on issues of doctrine, “We” being him and the Holy Spirit, in those instances. So, you are correct that we will probably not see such a pronouncement from the Church or any doctrine of the sort that would officially buy into AGW. Non-doctrine, rules, other pronouncements that do not bare witness to the “truth” can still put the Church in a poor light. Point in fact, look at some of the comments on this post.
I would like to see the Pope point out that the Church does not take an official position on issues such as these. Many times silence from the top is as bad as agreement on an issue.
Why are people so surprised that the Catholic has gotten involved?
Wasn’t it the same during Galileo’s time where the church, academia, and government were in bed with each other? Nothing has changed.
It does sound like the church’s stance on eugenics has changed since its part of the “climate change” movement’s core beliefs.
I’ve said this before…if trees had arms they would squeeze the living day-lights out of all the warmists so they could recover all the carbon they’re being denied. Talk about giving “carbon sequestration” a new meaning!
I know it is the consensus to bash the Catholic Church in relation to Galileo but like much of what we think we know, it is false. I am not a Catholic but like the truth. Fact check: The biggest supporters of Galileo were the clergy. His biggest opponents were other scientists/secular agencies supporting the consensus. Galileo was under house arrest because he went beyond his area of expertise and started making more theological, unsupported pronouncements. See:
The dispute between Galileo and the Catholic Church
It’s amazing to me how many very smart people still inaccurately portray this drama of history.
Sorry the link above should be
The dispute between Galileo and the Catholic Church
I spend a lot of time and effort teaching scientific method, I find profound philosophical discussions of religion too boring to follow. However, (ha, you knew that was coming) anyone who thinks science does or even can prove or disprove religion doesn’t understand either one very well.
Back to something more interesting though; If the Vatican ever does suggest anything on this issue beyond a general “have respect for the earth and for life” kind of statement; it is very unlikely that it will be supportive of the greens. Far more likely the Vatican is positioning itself to condemn draconian meassures that cause poverty and human suffering.
They might suggest strategies to mitigate the supposed impact on the poor instead of wasting money on wild schemes. They might use global warming fears as a reason to help the third world modernize. I’m sure any position they take wil have the entire environmental movement screaming in fury. Those of you who feel the need to vent your anti Catholic spleen have likely got it misdirected this time.
Social justice and sustainability mean wildly different things to the Church than they do to the environmentalists and the left in general.
Obviously the answer is in their own hands. They need to go on a mass ‘prayer retreat’ for several years and God will surely respond.
Paul Westhaver (May 9, 2011 at 12:36 pm) says: “In the perfect world, I hold that there is no division between science and religion, since ostensibly science is to avail the truth by a set of tools and religion desires to seek the truth. They are perfectly compatible.”
I like that description a lot. As for the compatibility bit, a fine ideal, but quite a bit of a challenge in the temporal world of ours. The problem, of course, is that the two domains, science and faith, both see themselves as complete and independent and wholly self-sufficient systems, and so tend to step on each other toes.
I see in my mind’s eye Mr Watts impatiently tapping his fingers, wondering (aloud?) just when he should shut this increasingly theological forum down. So, to be on topic, let me remark that many “modernish” religious scientists / scientific theologians such as Bacon and Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides), arrived at similar conclusions about the role and place of science during, and in the case of those two, towards the end of one of recent history’s most dramatic periods of global warming: the Medieval Optimum. The Renaissance, wrongly assumed to be an improvement on high medieval thought and culture, was a time of religious wars, plagues, famines and crazed intolerance. “Oddly” enough, most of the miseries in the Renaissance and after “coincided” with cool periods and Little Ice Ages.
Dear Anthony,
You have a wise policy on your blog not to allow religious discussion. I appreciate that and understand why this must be strictly upheld.
I would hope that you could be more considerate of your ardent Catholic fans – me for instance – who are global warming skeptics and love your blog. Could you cut back a little on the Catholic bashing that seems to creep into your blog at a fairly constant rate?
Please reduce comments on the 500 year old grudge against the Church in regard to Galileo. The Pope was advised by the scientists – the “concensus” – of the day who had 1,500 years of hard work behind them. This hard work and study was going to be tossed out the window and they knew it. We should not ignore the fact that these “ignorant scientists” knew, loved and studied the movements of the night sky. Although these men misinterpreted their findings, they had collected and safe-guarded the data which Galileo used in his calculations. This wasn’t all political. They wanted to hold onto what they saw as their way of life.
The Catholic Church has come a long ways from that time of Galileo. Keep in mind that it was Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, honorary prelate, professor of physics and astronomer at the Catholic University of Leuven, who proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe. He called this the ‘hypothesis of the primeval atom’. (I got that information from Wikipedia but in this case it is accurate)
Sincerely,
Helen
Catholic church, pfft. They abandoned science and let the aquaducts slip into ruin so water can’t have been more important than developing peculiar sexual traditions for a couple of thousand years, but of course they pestered the world with doomsday crap for equally long so this is probably just up their ally.
1DandyTroll (May 9, 2011 at 2:56 pm) says: “Catholic church, pfft. They abandoned science and let the aquaducts slip into ruin….”
I’m not Catholic, not by far, but I can’t help cringing over such stuff, especially the following gratuitous lines which I’d rather not re-paste. In any case, “they” did not abandon science anymore than anyone else did under similar circumstances, and the aqueducts (a by-product of another global warming phase, the Roman Optimal) were abandoned by everyone once Rome came apart, for the simple reason that the population numbers, infrastructures, specialized technologies and the Barbarian invasios made such simply unsustainable…events probably linked to global cooling. The Christian, Roman Catholic world did see a number of more modest revivals of science and ingenious technologies involving wind and water power in the warmer medieval period, between about 900 to 1250 CE.
It is astonishing how quickly a band of self-proclaimed skeptics can turn into credulous true believers when the topic switches to history and their own preconceptions. Any old legend or tendentious fundy propaganda – will be swallowed wholesale, with no effort made to ascertain the historical facts.
We find once more the hoary old chestnut about Constantine founding the Church. Or the Church spreading by [somehow or other] taking over native customs in Ireland, Russia, Kerala, et al. loc. A bit of ahistorical silliness about the origin of “feudal” serfdom (as if feudalism and manorialism were the same thing). The Inquisition was “an autonomous organization that did whatever it wanted”? Really? Which inquisition? Someone mentions the idiocy of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin? Who ever pondered this? Where is it recorded, or is it just something “everyone knows”? You could be burned at the stake for “calculating”? Really? Who was so burned? Bruno, the Hermetic mystic, is somehow dubbed a “scientist.”
As always, Galileo is trotted out for his lonely turn across the stage. He is credited with “inventing” the scientific method, as if Grosseteste or his Arabic and Greek predecessors had never lived – let alone Paul Vallius, whose class notes Galileo copied. Or for that matter, as if Fabricius, Harriot, Scheiner, Kepler, and a host of contemporaries had vanished down the memory hole.
There was a reason why Huxley once declared that the Church had the better case. Bellarmine had told Galileo that heliocentrism could be taught as a mathematical theory – back then astronomy was a branch of mathematics, not of physics – but not as physical fact unless he had empirical proof. He had none. In twenty years of further thought, he came up only with the tides as “sloshing” caused by the spinning earth, which was wrong. He answered the Objection of the Parallax by simply hypothesizing that the stars were much farther off than currently thought; but you can’t save one unproven hypothesis by tossing in a second unproven hypothesis. Parallax among the fixed stars was described in 1803 (and later, more definitely, by Bessel) and the second unresolved problem – the predicted eastward deflection of falling bodies – was finally measured by Gugliemini in the 1790s. Consequently, when Settele prepared his new astronomy text in 1820, he included these two results, showed them to the Holy Office, and said here’s the empirical proof Bellarmine wanted. The committee mulled it over and said, Yup, that’s it. And lifted the ban on presenting heliocentrism as physical fact.
IOW, Galileo demanded he be taken on faith and the Church had asked for empirical proof.
History requires every bit as much attention to facts as does
global cooling/global warming/climate change/——. Instead, too many here have relied on “models” of history.+ + +
PS. Galileo did not use Kepler’s work (correct) elliptical model. He never even read Kepler’s book (which, admittedly, is not easy reading). Nor did he make predictions from it or from Copernicus’ (incorrect) circular model. Nothing in Copernicus predicted sunspots or Jovian moons. The phases of Venus definitely drove a stake through the heart of Ptolemy; but Aristotelian physicists had always doubted Ptolemaic astronomy and the Tychonic and Ursine models also accounted for the phases of Venus.
Kepler’s elliptical model gets no mention in the Dialogues because Galileo was committed to circular motion and still had 20 epicycles in his Copernican model. (Nor does he mention Tychonic/Ursine model, which by then had replaced the defunct Ptolemaic model.) When Kepler wrote to Galileo asking for a telescope – (because Galileo had a rep as a lens-grinder) – Galileo simply never answered him. One suspects professional jealousy. Kepler was by far the better scientist.
The telescopic history is nicely summarized in Toby Huff’s book Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution.
+ + +
As regards the topic of the original post, the Pontifical Academy is tasked with providing scientific background advice to the Vatican. (I know one member, an astronomer.) It is not controlled by the Vatican, and its membership includes all sorts. Its reports are just that, and are not church policy, let alone doctrine. Whether the top scientists in the field of glaciers are grinding their own agenda is another matter entirely, and you mustn’t suppose that the Curia is entirely naive about such matters. They got burned once before when they asked a panel of top physicists about the validity of the Copernican system and the “settled science” and “consensus of scientists” was that it was “absurd in philosophy.” Perhaps the lesson ought to have been that the Church should be less accepting of secular science.
PPS. “Social justice” is a term coined by Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio, SJ, back in the early 1800s. Justice is a virtue and as such applies to individuals respecting that which is due unto others. The “social” part refers to the societies which men are wont to form, some of which are more natural and intimate than others: We come together not only in cities and states, “but first and most importantly in families, neighborhoods, religious bodies, clubs (guilds) and a variety of informal organizations.” Taparelli believed that “people have the right to form different levels of association and to interact through them to fulfill needs and accomplish necessary tasks. Each of these social spheres, institutions, or consortia has its own proper identity and purpose.” Each of these societies maintains its own unity so as not to lose its identity to the larger whole, nor lose the unity of the larger whole. That means the state, for example, should not usurp the prerogatives of the family. The term has been co-opted by the novelty of insisting that collectives rather than individuals practice virtue, and so is applied to vague abstractions like “high unemployment” or “world hunger.” Consequently, the term has been used by secular forces to mean “implementing the social programs I favor and which I declare must benefit people.” This absolves the individual of the obligation to practice justice himeself and ironically opens to the door both to socialist collectivization and Nietzschean/Randian egoism.
Indeed, he understood that a just society depends on these different forms of association each being able to do what they do best. He not only insisted on freedom for these various spheres, but especially for those closest to the ground: the associations that because people are most directly involved in them, encourage personal relationships and local responsibility.
His vision of social justice, then, emphasized freedom and respect for human beings and the small institutions through which they pursue basic needs.
Meanwhile, the Ecumenical Patriarch has been far more into the Green agenda; but no one seems to remember that the Orthodox Church even exists.
I am sorry that my attempt at humor was taken as an attack on the catholic church. My best and favorite college professor was a Jesuit with 2 doctorates in mathematics and i am proud of my graduation from a good Jesuit university.
So much for your tithes going to feed the poor.
Move over rover, let the Warmers take over.
As with anything involving the Catholic Church; I would advise patience. The AGW crowd has some strange philosophical and political bedfellows, that are not going to sit well with Rome after careful deliberation.
Bravo, Mr/Ms Ye Old Statistitian! Nice little read, that. Thanks for the mind candy….actually, more like a dessert table.
Perhaps the Vatican has looked at the carbon taxes and thought “we want a piece of that” after all they are the Masters of Indulgences.
And the moral imperative of claiming science based policies while lacking said science?
It was with significant disappointment, to observe the comments directed against an individual for giving an OK to a study, relating to “observed retreat of mountain glaciers, it’s causes and consequences”.
Considering the comments, it would seem that one wondered over to a AGW site, where vitriolic and ignorant language is common place. It is sad, that this site, one that prides itself on reason, intelligence, and science, would have comments worthy of the DeVinci Code.
It is also unwise to judge past civilizations to harshly. As a old history professor of mine once observed, someday this civilization will also be judged, by future standards.