Catholicism and Climate Change

[kimmielittle]

Below is some info to dispel the myth that the greenhouse effect violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics,

NICE try

Actually what was said Is The Second Law of Thermodynamics is ignored - which makes the equation used to suport the Green House Effect, as presented - wrong

Now, try applying this "An inert object can only radiate the amount it absorbs - Not twice… We can not even get a perfect 1 to 1 transfer In a Perfect heat transfer ]

Now take out Stefan-Boltzmann equations wrongly and knowingly ] applied.

You have merely parroted THE SAME OLD EQUATIONS The equations used BY ALL AGW’ers - CRU - NASA - IPCC - KYOTO - Mr Mann - Hansen - Schmidt - et al

I’ll give you fair warning This is the Words of Dr. Judith Curry You do know who she is at NASA don’t you? ]

Dr. Curry: “I’m contacting NASA about this.”

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The “global warming” as defined by IPCC is one degree per century. Or 0.01 degree per year. If there was a heat wave in Europe that killed all those people, then it could not have been the IPCC prediction of global warming. UNLESS IPCC REALLY missed the mark.

 

[kimmielittle]

So you’re suggesting perhaps the editors of the major science journals that publish articles about AGW are on the boards of…what?.. perhaps wind generator or solar power companies.

How ignorant would I have to be, to see…I need go no where - No Need to Serve on ANY wind panel etc FOR I HAVE CREATED CARBON CREDITS AND Pension Funds Investing I’m almost sure, that your University is invested into AGW Pension Plans - Most are ] . ALL I NEED DO - FEED the Media Hyperbole IN FAVOR of my Pension Plan Investments

Do we know this is true? - Well, we have this prime example in 2001 Mr Gore was at about 1 Million worth…in 2008 - 1 Billion.

The smoking gun - need not be found in the killers hand or even their possession

except for the handful of skeptical climate scientists nicely funded by Exxon/etc, who are of sterling character and can be trusted implicitly.

Actually, if you were stating a TRUTH…You would know and acknowledge ] that there are THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of Scientists …with absolutely no ties to ANYONE - Who are bringing the flaws of AGW to light - Who have bailed out of AGW hyperbole.

Your playing board is empty

Let’s destroy the evidence for AGW & befuddle the scientists by greatly reducing our GHGs

LET’s Present TRUTHFUL EVIDENCE first, shall we?

 

[kimmielittle]

The “global warming” as defined by IPCC is one degree per century. Or 0.01 degree per year. If there was a heat wave in Europe that killed all those people, then it could not have been the IPCC prediction of global warming. UNLESS IPCC REALLY missed the mark.

Some here, REALLY Cherish Mr William Connolley …lets see EVEN what He said about that Heat wave in 2003

“A single heatwave cannot be said to have been caused by global climate” … Connolley W.M. 2008: Comment on “Was the 2003 European summer heat wave caused by AGW?

Note Mr Connolley was removed from editorship at Wikipedia for suppression tactics

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Some here, REALLY Cherish Mr William Connolley …lets see EVEN what He said about that Heat wave in 2003

Note Mr Connolley was removed from editorship at Wikipedia for suppression tactics

NO! It CANNOT be!!

[You mean the warmers ACTUALLY do things like that? Whoa!]

 

[kimmielittle]

NO! It CANNOT be!!

[You mean the warmers ACTUALLY do things like that? Whoa!]

My Dear Friend Monte

I hate to inform you…AT NO TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD - HAS SO MUCH SUPPRESSION of Data - Raw Data - Facts - Evidence - Opposing Views - etc etc…BEEN BROUGHT UPON THE TAXPAYERS AND SCIENCE COMMUNITY. As has been brought in the name of AGW

AT NO TIME in HISTORY, have so many false claims / unsubstantiated claims been leveled against the World Community, as has been done, in the Name of AGW

I challenge anyone, to prove my statements above - wrong.

BUT take heart…my friend . People are now, demanding TRUTH AND WE CAN’T Be Stopped

Let the hypothesis of AGW - Stand Or Fail - solely on it’s OWN

 

[lynnvinc]

NICE try

Actually what was said Is The Second Law of Thermodynamics is ignored - which makes the equation used to suport the Green House Effect, as presented - wrong

Now, try applying this "An inert object can only radiate the amount it absorbs - Not twice… We can not even get a perfect 1 to 1 transfer In a Perfect heat transfer ]

Now take out Stefan-Boltzmann equations wrongly and knowingly ] applied.

I have no idea what you’re talking about – is there an article on which your claims are based?

RE entropy, I’ve known about and been concerned about that for many decades. It’s one of my underlying environmentalist foundations well before I became concerned about AGW – that we should reduce consumption of finite resources (slow down entropy) so that future generations can have something. That’s why since the 60s I’ve made sure we always live close to work (within 1 or 2 miles) and many other measures of thrift – which I’m not even counting in my 60% reduction in our GHGs since 1990.

Knowledge of entropy alone should make people energy/resource efficient/conservative and go on alt energy when feasible.

RE “Greenhouse effect impossible bec of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics” argument, by that logic, then life is impossible and we’re not really here

Anyway, it’s gotten me thinking. The scientific end of the universe is really sad, even tho it is ordained by God. But there is great happiness in Heaven – which is opposite entropy. And God has created Life in the material world, which struggles against entropy (tho it also increases it). If we Catholics are a people of Life, then we need to be so on all fronts – working against abortion, war, genocide, violence in homes & societies, AND environmental harms that kill people. Whether or not one accepts AGW and its strong scientific foundation, at the very least they should be working to mitigate other enviro problems, including our voracious using up of finite resources. Moderation and simple living should be our theme.

Can we at least agree to that?

 

[kimmielittle]

I have no idea what you’re talking about – is there an article on which your claims are based?

Have you not read any of my links in past posts?

RE “Greenhouse effect impossible bec of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics” argument, by that logic, then life is impossible and we’re not really here

Poor use of logic…I’ll let you think on this

Moderation and simple living should be our theme.

Can we at least agree to that?

Poor assumptions, here.
1] This assumes A VERY FLAWED ASSUMPTION ] That those against AGW - are against the environment.
2] This assumes those favoring AGW are environmentally sound.
3] This assumes those selling AGW, and it’s schemes, ARE, THEMSELVES, living in Moderate terms.

If your heroes are AGW’ers you need to find one … WHO actually LIVES what they preach.

Not one of the schemes endorsed by the AGW’ers as a “Solution” - Is environmentally based.

Do you really know the history of AGW?
Would you like to learn?

Start here ecofascism.com/article3.html

 

[lynnvinc]

Is this the paper that supposedly disproves the natural greenhouse effect and AGW? “The Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?” at ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf

If so, why wasn’t it published in a top-tier peer-review journal? I’m no scientist, but it seems to set up a strawman, which it then proceeds to knock down.

Climate scientists do take into account heat aborbed by land and ocean – which is why they say the atmosphere has not heated up as it would have without those factors. And they also talk about some energy going into melting ice in the cryosphere, instead of directly into heating.

Even passive solar architects understand the prinicples – which is why their homes often have dark tile floors near their southern big windows – to help the home stay warmer during cold winter nights. These principles have been known for over 2000 yrs – see The Golden Thread at amazon.com/Golden-Thread-Years-Architecture-Technology/dp/0442240058 (seems only our wasteful generations don’t do the right thing).

None of the authors are climate scientists, and they don’t seem to understand all the factors with which climate scientists are dealing. One author has an article published in Energy and Environment – a journal in disrepute and not listed as an ISI journal (see efm.leeds.ac.uk/~mark/ISIabbr/A_abrvjt.html ); its editor seems also involved in disproving evolution, as well.

The academic world is highly competitive and scientists who get published in top-tier journals are quite up to the challenge of dealing with real threats to the validity of their studies – that’s how science progresses, with the best science winning out (and AGW has won out). They are actually grateful to people who point out real problems in their studies. However, the types of analyses and “studies” pointed out by denialists & greatly hyped in the deniosphere seem to be nothing more than time-wasting side-shows that may fool non-scientists, and may interest those who cannot face facts and fear that their way of life and their world view are somehow threatened, but they are no real threat to the science of AGW.

As a non-scientist, as a Catholic concerned about life and souls, I simply follow the path of humbly accepting what the scientists say, and trying my best to make changes that reduce our GHGs and are sensible (“no regrets”). Seems to me that is the very least we can do. The prudent thing.

 

[lynnvinc]

If your heroes are AGW’ers you need to find one … WHO actually LIVES what they preach.

Not one of the schemes endorsed by the AGW’ers as a “Solution” - Is environmentally based.

Do you really know the history of AGW?
Would you like to learn?

Start here ecofascism.com/article3.html

Well, lots of people are concerned about AGW, and they come up with what they think are good solutions – like have other people mitigate it, and how can I make money off it Fallen human nature is always at play.

This is why we need everyone (as JPII suggested) to participate in coming up with solutions. I’m with you in being against Cap & Trade. I’d be quite happy if subsidies and tax-breaks to fossil fuel industries were ended. Why should I pay on April 15th for others to pollute the earth and kill people. I don’t want my money going for abortion or killing thru enviro harms (which also includes miscarriages).

I’d also be in favor of a “fee & 100% dividend” approach in the U.S. (a modest fee on each barrel of oil and ton of coal coming out of the ground or into the port, then the revenues divied up among all Americans to spend either on the higher energy prices or on becoming more energy efficient/conservative). I know the bishops are suggesting that some portion go to poor nations suffering from AGW harms, but I think that is a separate issue that also needs to be addressed, maybe in a separate bill (a “We break it, we buy it” bill).

I’d also be fine with more subsidies for alt energy and energy efficiency.

I think Cap & Trade won’t lower GHG emissions much, but just line the pockets of the rich, and stiff the poor.

 

[Anselm33]

As a non-scientist, as a Catholic concerned about life and souls, I simply follow the path of humbly accepting what the scientists say, and trying my best to make changes that reduce our GHGs and are sensible (“no regrets”). Seems to me that is the very least we can do. The prudent thing.

OK, now you say you’re a non-scientist (in a previous post you had said you were a physical scientist…I’m confused about how you regard yourself. You say you humbly accept “what the scientists say”, but the “scientists” you accept are the frauds of Climategate who fudged data and violated every precept of science I had been given as a graduate student. And you don’t accept what has been shown in over 500 peer-reviewed papers, that AGW is not valid (under some views it’s such a bad hypothesis that “It isn’t even wrong”). You’ve not accepted the judgment of eminent scientists–Lindzen, a chaired professor of meteorology at MIT, Singer, Ball, Seitz (former president of the National Academy of Sciences)–that AGW is not valid, but instead tried to impute their motives as agents of the devil or mercenary lackeys of the oil industry. (Ironic, since a major source of funding for CRU was BP).
You haven’t countered legitimate scientific arguments that H2O is also a greenhouse gas, and present in much greater abundance than CO2, but have used a tortuous argument about “feedback” that does not (excuse the pun) hold water. You have not presented any arguments to counter the historical and geological evidence that there were much warmer periods in the past (e.g the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Eocene) without the presence of man-made CO2. You have used arguments (I’m not sure where they came from) that CO2 stayed in the atmosphere much longer than H2O so it’s that factor that makes CO2 more important as a warming agent (longer residence time is probably not true given CO2 intake by vegetation, but irrelevant in any case) ignoring the scientific fact that steady-state concentrations, not residence time is critical to the amount of heat re-radiated in the infra-red.
You’ve made the argument that even though AGW is improbable, given the consequences we should expend all that is needed to minimize it. However, you haven’t recognized economists (Bjorn Lindgren) who say, given an expectation value for money spent and results achieved, the game isn’t worth the candle and we’d do better spending the same amount of money on relief efforts for the Third World–eradicating malaria, improving water supplies, etc.
I strongly urge you to put your good impulses and energy to work on a worthwhile cause, a cause that is meaningful: stopping abortion; increasing economic opportunity for migrant families; helping to assimilate latin-american immigrants to our culture.
There are a handful of the faithful, who along with Al Gore and the uneducated Main Stream Media personnel, who still have a religious faith in AGW. But you won’t find this opinion amongst knowledgeable scientists or the general population who’ve taken the trouble to inform themselves about AGW.
I appreciate your concern about this issue, but I urge you to step back and take an objective look at the scientific, economic and ethical issues involved.

 

[kimmielittle]

Is this the paper that supposedly disproves the natural greenhouse effect and AGW? “The Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?” at ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf

If so, why wasn’t it published in a top-tier peer-review journal? I’m no scientist, but it seems to set up a strawman, which it then proceeds to knock down.

No need to publish. 40 yeats ago NASA proved it Just released via Freedom of Information ] - BUT if you follow out the resources listed - You might be pleasantly surprised. There has been many peer-reviewed papers about the **radiative equilibrium balance between Sun and Earth and CO2. **

Climate scientists do take into account heat aborbed by land and ocean – which is why they say the atmosphere has not heated up as it would have without those factors. And they also talk about some energy going into melting ice in the cryosphere, instead of directly into heating.

Actually, using Stefan-Boltzmann equations wrongly, invalidates these equations.Also, a blackbody calculation, then, doesn’t prepare us for atmospheric temperatures either, let alone inert solids.

None of the authors are climate scientists, and they don’t seem to understand all the factors with which climate scientists are dealing.

What is the educational requirements to become a Climatologist? Do you need hard science in Physics, Math, Biology, Meteorology or ANY SCIENCE ? We know they apply the rules of logic - illogically. Can you point to a University degree in Climatology?

The academic world is highly competitive and scientists who get published in top-tier journals are quite up to the challenge of dealing with real threats to the validity of their studies – that’s how science progresses, with the best science winning out (and AGW has won out).

Actually, it has only won out …to those that choose to read / believe in unproved hypothesis and hyperbole.

They are actually grateful to people who point out real problems in their studies.

That is why they suppress opposing opions? That is why they don’t honor Freedom of Information? That is why, unlike real Scientists, they don’t hold for reconstruction, under laboratory conditions, raw data? That is why they have no Transparency? That is why there are so few statisticians, used by them, that can not explain the stats going in and coming out?

 

[Calliso]

Actually I think the paper Kimmie is talking about is a paper by G. Gerlich and R. D. Tscheuschner. But really as I understand it that paper has been pretty throughly debunked. See here for an example rabett.blogspot.com/search?q=G.+Gerlich+and+R.+D.+Tscheuschner and here skepticalscience.com/Has-the-greenhouse-effect-been-falsified.html

But long story short the greenhouse effect is still around and hasn;t been debunked. We wouldn;t be here if it wasn;t for the greenhouse effect! As for climate change in the past we know it has been warmer in the past with no humans. This really isn;t a good argument to then say that the current warming must be natural. skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

As for water vapor yes it is stronger then co2 as a greenhouse gas however it cannot be a forcing for climate change. skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

 

[Calliso]

An interesting video to watch. On the history of Co2 and earths climate. agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

 

[Gift_from_God]

The Church has no real teaching on climate change, but don’t doubt the scientific community on this.

 

[markbrumbaugh]

Moderation and simple living should be our theme.

Can we at least agree to that?

It depends. I don’t think the church wants us to return to the stone age, with all its moderation and simple living. So who decides what is moderate and simple? If it isn’t yourself according to your own concience, it isn’t freedom and it if isn’t freedom, its tyranny.

You are welcome to live as simple and moderate a life as you please.

 

[kimmielittle]

Actually I think the paper Kimmie is talking about is a paper by G. Gerlich and R. D. Tscheuschner. But really as I understand it that paper has been pretty throughly debunked. See here for an example rabett.blogspot.com/search?q=G.+Gerlich+and+R.+D.+Tscheuschner and here skepticalscience.com/Has-the-greenhouse-effect-been-falsified.html

Actually, No.
I am referring to The papers of such as Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, Who with much peer-review hasn’t been debunked ].climatology.suite101.com/article.cfm/no-greenhouse-effect-in-semi-transparent-atmospheres

NASA’s Dr. Curry: NASA Numbers “drastic oversimplification”
**Indeed, so persuasive is Dr. Miskolczi among his scientific peers that no advocate of the GHG theory (tht relies on the Stefan-Boltzmann “black body” numbers) has yet been able to refute him. **As I recently reported NASA is now in a considerable quandry over what exactly is the correct equation for the Earth’s energy budget with their education department currently printing high-school textbooks disagreeing with the orthodox theory.
As explained to me lately in e-mail correspondence by NASA’s Dr. Judith Curry: “Everybody would agree that the simple black body planetary energy balance model is a drastic oversimplification, it is used only for illustrative purposes.”
So I asked Dr. Curry if NASA had a better set of equations than the crude Stefan-Boltzmann “black body” numbers: no answer.
Indeed, Stefan-Boltzmann who devised the “blackbody” equation never intended his numbers to be applied to a three-dimensional rotating planet. So why NASA’s reluctance to accept a more sophisticated and accurate new climate equation-or, at least use the tried and tested numbers that safely got Neil Armstrong landed on the Moon?
New Revelations Encourage Scientists to Speak Out
Signing up to join Dr. Miskolczi in the skeptic attack on the debunked greenhouse theory are dozens of eminent international scientists in tandem with a startling new research paper that proved NASA Apollo Moon mission scientists, forty years ago, had a better set of climate equations than the “black body” numbers that NASA’s own Dr. Curry says are,” only for illustrative purposes. Why doesn’t NASA now come clean about this?
Concern about the science behind the man-made global warming theory grew after the November 2009 Climategate. The official Bridish Oxburgh Inquiry into the alleged ‘cherry-picking’ of climate data confirmed scientists acted with subjective advocacy and being over-zealous ‘poor statisticians.’

The works of Hans Jelbring.
The works of Heinz Thieme
The works of NASA in the1960’s and corrections and the misuse of using Stefan-Boltzmann equations wrongly, invalidating these equations of Earth Energy Balance.- Earth Energy Budget.

It seems other scientists are becoming more open in their agreement with such findings. More recently, science author Heinz Thieme and 130 German scientists have also come out to refute the greenhouse gas theory as a plausible explanation of the mechanism of Earth’s climate.

But long story short the greenhouse effect is still around and hasn;t been debunked.

The EFFECT of Green House Effect - Has indeed, been challenged.

We wouldn;t be here if it wasn;t for the greenhouse effect!

A BOLD statement, care to prove it - without Stefan-Boltzmann equations Maybe, with strict adherence to Kirchhoff’s law of radiation G.R. Kirchhoff ]?

Maybe, a simpler question? After applying AGW as it stands ] How come Earth Has no increase in CO2 as predicted?

 

[kimmielittle]

The Church has no real teaching on climate change,

ABSOLUTELY

but don’t doubt the scientific community on this.

Can you give one good reason not to doubt the warmists on this? I can give many reasons TO doubt them - And most come FROM the AGW warmists. Their own worset enemy ]

Suppression of opposing arguments.
Shoddy science practices
Cherry Picking Data to support a hypothesis - Real Science doesn’t - First make up it’s mind and then cherry pick - to support their agenda.
etc etc

 

[kimmielittle]

The Church has no real teaching on climate change,

ABSOLUTELY

but don’t doubt the scientific community on this.

Can you give one good reason not to doubt the warmists on this? I can give many reasons TO doubt them - And most come FROM the AGW warmists. Their own worse enemy ]

Suppression of opposing arguments.
Shoddy science practices
Cherry Picking Data to support a hypothesis - Real Science doesn’t - First make up it’s mind and then cherry pick - to support their agenda.
etc etc

 

[lynnvinc]

OK, now you say you’re a non-scientist (in a previous post you had said you were a physical scientist…

I’m an anthropologist in the cultural subfield – but the field itself is in the physical and social sciences and humanities (and I had to take courses in physical anthropology or human biology). But I am certainly not a climate scientist. That’s probably what I meant.

…the “scientists” you accept are the frauds of Climategate who fudged data and violated every precept of science I had been given as a graduate student. And you don’t accept what has been shown in over 500 peer-reviewed papers, that AGW is not valid (under some views it’s such a bad hypothesis that “It isn’t even wrong”). You’ve not accepted the judgment of eminent scientists–Lindzen, …

There just aren’t hardly any peer-reviewed papers or climate scientists denying/disproving AGW. Lindzen for one accepts it, but his theory about how it will self-correct thru the iris effect has not proven out.

You haven’t countered legitimate scientific arguments that H2O is also a greenhouse gas, and present in much greater abundance than CO2, but have used a tortuous argument about “feedback” that does not (excuse the pun) hold water.

I’m thinking it would be best to contact David Archer about all this, since you don’t believe me. He is a climate scientist at the U of Chicago, specializing on GHGs. He wasn’t involved in any of the “non-scandals” denialists vociferously decry, and I’ve known him for 5 years – a forthright, decent person.

He wrote a few guest posts at RC – one on how long CO2 will last in the atmosphere. You’re right about half is currently drawn down by plants, and some by weathering (some is making the ocean acidic thru cabonic acid…itself a very serious problem, enough for us to reduce our GHGs). David suggests a small portion of CO2 can last in the atmosphere up to 100,000 years (see realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/langswitch_lang/in/ ). And he says methane (CH4) will last about 10 years in the atmosphere before it decomposes into CO2 and other molecules; however, since it is 23 times more potent GHG than CO2, there is this problem. Carbon gases (CO2, CH4) are also feedbacks (as well as forcings); that is, the warming is melting permafrost and ocean clathrates that have trapped CH4, releasing the gas. If there is fast enough melting to release vast amounts this potent GHG could more rapidly warm the earth and cause a sharp spiralling into climate hysteresis, or a great warming that kills off much of life on planet earth, as happened during the end-Permian extinction 251 mya, and the PETM 55 mya. See realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/methane-hydrates-and-global-warming/. Note that since 2005, when David wrote that, more disturbing findings have been coming in that there is much more CH4 in permafrost than expected, and it is being released faster than expected. The idea is that if a tremedous amount of CH4 were to be released within 10 years, the warming effect would be greatly compounded.

RE water. As mentioned it is only in the atmosphere a few days to a week or so, mainly through evaporation due to warmer temps. If it did have a longer residency in the atmosphere then its warming effect would be greatly compounded, and (depending on what residency time lengths in our hypothetical exercise), it could lead to runaway warming as on Venus. As it is the slight warming caused by the other GHGs causes water to be sucked out of water bodies, soil, and plants, dessicating them, not only greatly enhancing the warming, but also making conditions ripe for wild fires and deluges (depending on certain other weather conditions).

More in my next…