If climate change is real, is it a sin to do nothing about it?

[Inego_de_Loyola]

I think I covered this somewhere in this thread. The issue is more like it’s the amount that makes the food or poison. Here’s an excerpt from a paper I wrote on Food Rights & CC:

What might global warming and its effects mean for food and food production? First we need to address the argument that elevated carbon dioxide levels increase crop production.** Aside from this being disingenuous because the CO2 is also causing warming and other effects that could be harmful to crops,** there is evidence that increasing CO2 will not help crops as much as expected, and may even harm some crops and sea life, never mind the warming (Cline 2007: 23-26). While earlier enclosed studies showed increased growth with added CO2, recent open field studies show less increase and even a decline of some crops (Long, et al. 2006, Cruz, et al. 2007: 480). Furthermore, crops were found to be less nutritious (Högy, et al. 2009), and had greater pest damage (Hunter 2001). In the real world, crop growth is affected by many factors beyond CO2, including other nutrients, water supply, climate, extreme weather events, soil moisture, toxins expected to increase with global warming, and soil acidification from CO2 (Oh and Richter 2004). So while CO2 may moderately enhance crops up to a point, these other factors are expected to limit the potential enhancement and even lead to eventual declines. When the impact of warming is considered, a nonlinear relationship regarding crop productivity has been found for mid and high latitudes – the U.S., Canada, Europe, Russia, Japan and Northern China – with increased yields projected up to around 2050, after which the warming causes sharp decrease (Schlenker and Roberts 2009). A more recent study has found that climate change has already reduced some crops globally, despite CO2 fertilization and improved technology (Lobell, et al. 2011). As for sea life, an important human food supply, CO2-caused ocean acidification is having negative impacts on zooplankton (at the base of the food chain), shellfish, fish, and coral reefs, home to one-fourth of sealife (Rogers and Laffoley 2011; Doney, et al. 2009; Hoegh-Guldberg, et al. 2007; Munday, et al. 2010).
​

BZZZZT I’m sorry, but warming is good for most plants; would you like to take another guess.​

 

[kimmielittle]

For instance, one study found that 60,000 Americans die prematurely each year from small particulate matter in pollutants that is not regulated –

Make the claim - produce the reference link ].

If you are quoting from the EPA claim…Congress has asked the EPA to produce one body…The answer:
McCarthy said:

“I don’t think I can address that specifically. I can’t name any individual.”

Since much of my CO2 emissions last a very long time in the atmosphere, some lasting up to 100,000 years,

You know this claim has no empirical evidence - IPCC doesn’t even claim this - I have proven to you:

Physically impossible in Earths constraints!

CO2 is heavier than the atmosphere.
CO2 is much heavier than Methane.
SOOT is much heavier than CO2

According to IPCC:
Methane lasts approximately 10 years in the atmosphere
Soot lasts Days in the atmosphere

The LAWS of Physics says CO2 has to react to gravity. - BETWEEN - The lighter Methane - 10 years ] and heavier Black Carbon Soot - days ].

CO2’s Molar mass molecular weight ] is 44.0096 g/mol. It has a net atmospheric lifetime of about 5 years.

Methane’s CH4 ] Molecular weight : 16.043 g/mol. It has a net atmospheric lifetime of about 10 years.

Why does methane CH4 ] stay in the stratosphere longer? Why does a bowling ball CO2 ] take more energy to 'lift" and stay air-born than a ping-pong ball Methane ]? Inertia vs gravity.

Earth’s Standard gravity is g = 9.81 m/s2 = 32.2 ft/s2 All things in a vacuum… fall at the same rate.

Diffusion earths warmth and air currants ] is the kinetic energy inertia ] that makes CO2 rise. Otherwise it would stay as fog like dry ice CO2 ] does in a vacuum ] on the surface.

Why does simple example ] if all things fall at the same rate gravity - g = 9.81 m/s2 = 32.2 ft/s2 ] do heavier objects say, in a tornado, fall sooner than lighter objects? It takes much more energy inertia ] for the heavier object to deify gravity.

Atmospheric Methane CH4 ] and CO2 share the same space, the stratosphere. Both subject to the same inertia. Inertia is blind to the object - It is the objects mass weight - surface ] that reacts to the inertia.

With CO2 the heavier, the inertia would have to be stronger directed, at about 3 times, to CO2 … than Methane, the lighter less energy needed to defy gravity ], to stay longer in the atmosphere than Methane.

.

A righteous cause …doesn’t need fabrications.

 

[kama3]

One is not morally culpable for acting contrary to a theory one does not believe.

So if an adherent of Peter Singer procures an abortion, they are not morally culpable?

 

[pnewton]

So if an adherent of Peter Singer procures an abortion, they are not morally culpable?

I said “theory”. Abortion is not a “theory”, but an objective grave evil.

 

[kimmielittle]

not whether or not AGW is happening (which has been discussed ad nauseam on other threads & can still be discussed on the thread suggested by the moderator).

Hmmmm … I believe you titled this thread"

Re: If climate change is real, is it a sin to do nothing about it?

Actually, YOU introduced AGW being real or not…IN the title you chose.

You start with an assumption on your part - AND then try to defend that a sin is being committed based on your assumption.

You, from your first post, assume that anyone who doesn’t believe as you do, is in sin.

You assume that people who challenge the AGW unsupportable claims are trying to convince others, thus sinners.

One of those spiritual harms I became aware of several years ago is the responsibility of people to inform their brethren about their brethren’s wrong-doing, or that sin falls back on the person who failed to warn.

Yet, when you use unsupportable claims…???

.

So my feet are held to the fire in this – I have to speak out whatever the negative repercussion to myself.

So being corrected on using unverifiable claims…to adorn your cause…makes one a martyr?

And others, if they truly believe that mitigating AGW

Can you give us empirical evidence that you have mitigated AGW?

You say it is a sin not to speak out - Yet, you call me a sinner FOR speaking out about unsupportable CAGW claims?

 

[kimmielittle]

I said “theory”. Abortion is not a “theory”, but an objective grave evil.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[kama3]

BZZZZT I’m sorry, but warming is good for most plants; would you like to take another guess.

Would you like to familiarize yourself with the subject? There are some good papers on this written in circles close to the Pentagon.

Warmer climate is good for the plants, sure. What you are missing, is that if a global climate becomes warmer, it will have different precipitation patterns. So, some previously fertile land will become desert. At the same time, some previously unusable land will become fertile.

However, since people generally live in areas where land is fertile, swapping fertile and infertile areas will cause human migrations a massive scale. By massive, I means something like one billion people will have to move by several thousand kilometers.

History teaches us that such migrations never happen peacefully. Which is why people who work in the five-sided building are interested in global warming (surprise, surprise).

Now, read Rev 16:12 keeping in mind what I just said.

 

[kimmielittle]

Would you like to familiarize yourself with the subject? There are some good papers on this written in circles close to the Pentagon.

Warmer climate is good for the plants, sure. What you are missing, is that if a global climate becomes warmer, it will have different precipitation patterns. So, some previously fertile land will become desert. At the same time, some previously unusable land will become fertile.

However, since people generally live in areas where land is fertile, swapping fertile and infertile areas will cause human migrations a massive scale. By massive, I means something like one billion people will have to move by several thousand kilometers.

History teaches us that such migrations never happen peacefully. Which is why people who work in the five-sided building are interested in global warming (surprise, surprise).

Now, read Rev 16:12 keeping in mind what I just said.

Hmmmmm how many centuries will this take at 0.8 C , or less. per 150 years?

We do have ACTUAL evidence of tens of thousands being displaced RIGHT NOW in the NAME of AGW - CAGW schemes.

Where is the outrage?

Now, read Rev 16:12 keeping in mind what I just said.

 

[kama3]

I said “theory”. Abortion is not a “theory”, but an objective grave evil.

And this is precisely what I was going to demonstrate. You’re employing a double standard.

Proposition A - global warming is real.
Proposition B - fetus is a person.

By your own logic, someone who does not accept that a given proposition is true, cannot be held culpable for an act seen as evil should the proposition be true. It follows, that it does not matter if the proposition is true or not, only what the actor believes about the proposition. So the same mechanism which releases you from culpability for AGW effects – because you do not believe in proposition A – releases an adherent of Peter Singer from culpability for abortion – since such person does not believe in proposition B.

As for the claim that proposition B is objectively true while proposition A is not, you have it exactly backwards.

Global warming is not a theory, but a fact, which follows from well-established physical principles. The only real controversy is about the magnitude and impacts of the effect, not its existence. Thus existence of global warming is objective.

The evil of abortion, on the other hand, depends on the definition of personhood. Since there is not one, commonly agreed on definition of personhood, there are some definitions of personhood which exclude fetuses. So the evil of abortion depends on one’s definition of personhood and is thus completely subjective.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Would you like to familiarize yourself with the subject? There are some good papers on this written in circles close to the Pentagon.

Warmer climate is good for the plants, sure. What you are missing, is that if a global climate becomes warmer, it will have different precipitation patterns. So, some previously fertile land will become desert. At the same time, some previously unusable land will become fertile.

However, since people generally live in areas where land is fertile, swapping fertile and infertile areas will cause human migrations a massive scale. By massive, I means something like one billion people will have to move by several thousand kilometers.

History teaches us that such migrations never happen peacefully. Which is why people who work in the five-sided building are interested in global warming (surprise, surprise).

Now, read Rev 16:12 keeping in mind what I just said.

For reasons discussed on the other thread, I don’t believe the earth will warm significantly from increase in CO2. If it did, and that lead to more fertile land than we now have but desserts in places that are now fertile, then I would recommend damns and aqueducts. Please don’t leave human ingenuity out of the equation.

 

[kimmielittle]

And this is precisely what I was going to demonstrate. You’re employing a double standard.

Proposition A - global warming is real.
Proposition B - fetus is a person.

By your own logic, someone who does not accept that a given proposition is true, cannot be held culpable for an act seen as evil should the proposition be true. It follows, that it does not matter if the proposition is true or not, only what the actor believes about the proposition. So the same mechanism which releases you from culpability for AGW effects – because you do not believe in proposition A – releases an adherent of Peter Singer from culpability for abortion – since such person does not believe in proposition B.

As for the claim that proposition B is objectively true while proposition A is not,** you have it exactly backwards**.

Hmmmm I believe this is a Catholic forum. Your logic fails you in that content.

Global warming is not a theory,

You are right - It’s AGW - CAGW that’s an unproven hypothesis.

but a fact, which follows from well-established physical principles.

Is water vapor a Positive or Negative feedback? What does your physical principles say about Convection - Albedo - Clouds?

The evil of abortion, on the other hand, depends on the definition of personhood.

You’d like for us Catholics to think that way…BUT The Holy Father has spoken from the Chair…It is not subjective!!!

 

[lynnvinc]

BZZZZT I’m sorry, but warming is good for most plants; would you like to take another guess.

Yes, up to a point, at which warming starts becoming harmful, but we must consider other negative GW impacts, as well. Here’s part of my paper on that; of special note is the study of Welch, et al. about how the increasing night temps are reducing rice yields, while the increasing day temps are helping, but are expected to harm after a certain temp is reached.

  When the impact of warming is considered, a nonlinear relationship regarding crop productivity has been found for mid and high latitudes ... with increased yields projected up to around 2050, after which the warming causes sharp decrease (Schlenker and Roberts 2009).  A more recent study has found that climate change has already reduced some crops globally, despite CO2 fertilization and improved technology (Lobell, et al. 2011)....

  Perhaps the greatest global warming threat to agricultural production is drought and heat stress (Battisti and Naylor 2009; Dai 2010).  Warmer air holds more moisture, leading to soil and plant desiccation (Cline 2007:26).  Furthermore, this can lead to increased deluges, sometimes even during droughts (Parry, et al. 2007: 75, Dai 2010:16), as happened in the 2009 floods in India, which was suffering its worst drought in a century; crop and property losses in one state were calculated at $3 billion, with food prices expected to soar (NDTV 2009)..... (endnote #1).

  Water reduction from glacial and snowpack retreat due to global warming is another threat to irrigation-fed agriculture (UNEP 2009; Kehrwald, et al. 2008) (endnote #2).  One third of the world’s population and their agriculture rely on the annual glacial and snowpack cycle....(Kundzewicz, et al. 2008: 5)....

  South Asia and Asia in general, with large undernourished populations, may also suffer reduced climate-related food security through increasing temperatures, droughts, floods, cyclones, and glacier retreat.  Crops yields could decrease 30 percent by 2050 (Cruz, et al. 2007: 479), perhaps even more if CO2 and increasing diurnal temperatures harm rice yields (Cruz, et al. 2007: 80; Welch, et al. 2010).  Bangladesh would lose 1,000 km3 of crop land to a 1 meter rise in sea level (Cruz, et al. 2007: 481), and a greater rise is projected by the end of the century (Vermeer and Rahmstorf 2009)....

References and Endnotes in my next post.

 

[lynnvinc]

References & endnotes to my previous post:

REFERENCES

• Battisti, D. S., and R. L. Naylor. 2009. “Historical Warnings of Future Food Insecurity with Unprecedented Seasonal Heat.” Science 323(5911): 240-244.
• Betts, R., M. Collins, D. L. Hemming, C. D. Jones, J. A. Lowe, and M. G. Sanderson. 2011. “When Could Global Warming Reach 4°C?” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 369:67-84.
• Cline, W. R. 2007. Global Warming and Agriculture. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development and the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
• Cruz, R. V., H. Harasawa, M. Lal, S. Wu, Y. Anokhin, B. Punsalmaa, Y. Honda, M. Jafari, C. Li, and N. Huu Ninh. 2007. “Asia.” Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contributions of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson (eds.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 469-506.
• Dai, A. 2010. “Drought Under Global Warming: A Review.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:Climate Change. 10/19/10, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.81/pdf.
• Kehrwald, N. M., L. G. Thompson, Y. Tandong, E. Mosley-Thompson, U. Schotterer, V. Alfimov, J. Beer, J. Eikenberg, and M. E. Davis. 2008. “Mass Loss on Himalayan Glacier Endangers Water Resources.” Geophysical Research Letters 35: L22503.
• Kundzewicz, Z. W., L. J. Mata, N. W. Arnell, P. Döll, B. Jimenez, K. Miller, T. Okt, Z. Sen, and I. Shiklomanov. 2008. “The Implications of Projected Climate Change for Freshwater Resources and their Management.” Hydrological Sciences 53(1): 3-10.
• Lobell, D. B., W. Schlenker, and J. Costa-Roberts. 2011. “Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980.” Science 333(6042): 616-620.
• Long, S. P., E. A. Ainsworth, A. D. B. Leakey, J. Nösberger, D. R. Ort. 2006. “Food for Thought: Lower-Than-Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations.” Science 312(5782): 1918-1921.
• NDTV. 2009. “India: Prices set to soar as crucial crops are lost in floods.” Oct. 7. ndtv.com/news/india/prices_set_to_soar_as_crucial_crops_are_lost_in_floods.php
• Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. 2010. Assessing an IPCC Assessment: An Analysis of Statement on Projected Regional Impacts in the 2007 Report. The Hague: Bilthoven. pbl.nl/images/500216002_tcm61-48119.pdf.
• Oschlies, A., K. Schulz, U. Riebesell, and A. Schmittner. 2008. “Simulated 21st century’s increase in oceanic suboxia by CO2-enhanced biotic carbon export” Global Biochemical Cycles 22: 1-10.
• Parry, M. L., O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, and Co-authors. 2007. “Technical summary.” In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contributions of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. M. L. Parry, O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson (eds.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 23-78.
• Qiu, J. 2010. “Measuring the Meltdown.” Nature 468:141-142.
• Rahmstorf, S., M. Mann, R. Benestad, G. Schmidt, and W. Connolley. 2005. “Hurricanes and Global Warming – Is There a Connection?” RealClimate.org, 9/02/05, realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-global-warming/.
• Roemmich, D., and J. McGowan. 1995. “Climatic Warming and the Decline of Zooplankton in the California Current.” Science 267(5202): 1324-1326.
• Rogers, A. D., and D. d’A. Laffoley. 2011. International Earth System Expert Workshop on Ocean Stresses and Impacts. Summary Report. International Program on the State of the Ocean. Oxford. stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1906_IPSO-LONG.pdf.
• Schlenker, W., and M. Roberts. 2009. “Nonlinear Temperature Effects Indicate Severe Damages to U.S. Crop Yields under Climate Change.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. 106(37): 15594-15598.
• UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2009. Recent Trends in Melting Glaciers, Tropospheric Temperatures over the Himalayas and Summer Monsoon Rainfall over India. United Nations Environmental Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. mtnforum.org/rs/ol/counter_docdown.cfm?fID=6017.pdf.
• Valdes, P. 2011. “Built for stability.” Nature Geoscience 4:414-416.
• Vermeer, M., and S. Rahmstorf. 2009. “Global Sea Level Linked to Global Temperature.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106(51): 21527-21532.
• Welch, J., J. R. Vincent, M. Auffhammer, P. F. Moya, A. Dobermann, and D. Dawe. “Rice Yields in Tropical/Subtropical Asia Exhibit Large but Opposing Sensitivities to Minimum and Maximum Temperatures.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(33): 14562-14567.

---

ENDNOTES:

1. No single weather event can be attributed to climate change…It can only be said that climate change will make such extreme events more likely (see Rahmstorf, et al. 2005)…
2. Many are aware of the IPCC’s “glaciergate” fiasco around the erroneous claim that Himalayan glaciers could all melt by 2035, found in the Working Group II 2007 report on the impacts of climate change on Asia (Cruz 2007:493). In fact, the 46,000 plus Himalayan glaciers have not been adequately studied (Qiu 2010). Working Group II, unlike Working Group I (on the science of climate change), allows some non-peer reviewed sources, which led to the error. Scientists do note net retreat of Himalayan glaciers, with some retreating rapidly and have addressed “glaciergate” (see Qiu 2010). Despite this error and a few others, IPCC reports are good sources for information – the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2010:9,33,37) found no errors that undermine the basic findings – and may even underestimate climate change risks (Valdes 2011).

 

[lynnvinc]

Make the claim - produce the reference link ].

From my 1998 thesis on Environmental Victimology:
According to a comprehensive Harvard study, small particulate (including sulfate) air pollution mainly from combustion of fossil fuels is linked to the deaths of about 60,000 Americans each year, factoring out cigarette smoking and many other factors. Populations in the highest polluted areas were found to have 15% to 17% higher mortality rates from such pollution than populations in the least polluted areas (Pope, et al. 1995; Dockery and Pope 1994).

Dockery, D. W., and C. Arden Pope III. 1994. “Acute
Respiratory Effects of Particulate Air Pollution.” Annual Review of Public Health 15:107 132.

Pope, et al. 1995 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1523269/pdf/envhper00354-0064.pdf

 

[kama3]

Hmmmmm how many centuries will this take at 0.8 C , or less. per 150 years?

Actually, such changes are pretty quick. Little Ice Age begun ca. 1560 and it triggered the Thirty Years War that started in 1618, which gives about 60 years.

Zhanga et.al., The causality analysis of climate change and large-scale human crisis pnas.org/content/108/42/17296.full

Abstract
Recent studies have shown strong temporal correlations between past climate changes and societal crises. However, the specific causal mechanisms underlying this relation have not been addressed. We explored quantitative responses of 14 fine-grained agro-ecological, socioeconomic, and demographic variables to climate fluctuations from A.D. 1500–1800 in Europe. Results show that cooling from A.D. 1560–1660 caused successive agro-ecological, socioeconomic, and demographic catastrophes, leading to the General Crisis of the Seventeenth Century. We identified a set of causal linkages between climate change and human crisis. Using temperature data and climate-driven economic variables, we simulated the alternation of defined “golden” and “dark” ages in Europe and the Northern Hemisphere during the past millennium. Our findings indicate that climate change was the ultimate cause, and climate-driven economic downturn was the direct cause, of large-scale human crises in preindustrial Europe and the Northern Hemisphere.

Considering that we have been on a warming trend for several decades now, the conflict should start this century. Although, according to some analysts, it has started already… Do you realize that we have two nuclear states locked in a conflict over who owns a glacier?

And there is another ticking bomb in the Middle East: ce.utexas.edu/prof/mckinney/ce397/Topics/Jordan/Jordan%282010%29.pdf

Over the past 5 decades, the Jordan River lost over 90% of its normal flow. Upstream, the
Sea of Galilee is diverted for Israeli agriculture, while its tributaries are dammed up for Jordanian and Syrian agriculture. 4 According to 2009 projections from the International
Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), by the middle of the 21st century, the entire
region is expected to rise in temperature due to global warming. By 2020, the IISD model
predicts 2.5°C to 3.7°C rises in summer and 2.0°C to 3.1°C in winter. The region will get
drier with significant rainfall decline in the wet season, outweighing slight increases
during drier summer months, and overall, rain will fall further north.

We do have ACTUAL evidence of tens of thousands being displaced RIGHT NOW in the NAME of AGW - CAGW schemes.

Where is the outrage?

You’re seeing AGW being used to facilitate a resource grab. However, why did the actors behind this resource grab, decided to go for it in the first place? … The answer does not necessarily involve AGW.

Now, read Rev 16:12 keeping in mind what I just said.

You didn’t look up the verse, did you?

 

[lynnvinc]

Is water vapor a Positive or Negative feedback? What does your physical principles say about Convection - Albedo - Clouds?

Water vapor is a positive feedback. Lindzen’s iris hypothesis about clouds having a net negative feedback (or cancelling out the WV positive feedback) has not been found to hold water unfortunate for us and other forms of life on earth.

 

[kama3]

BUT The Holy Father has spoken from the Chair…It is not subjective!!!

Ah, I get it. So a Catholic is free to employ moral relativism on matters which the Pope did not speak about… OK. What will you do when the Pope makes an ex cathedra pronouncement about AGW?

Re: water vapor feedback – actually, it does not matter. All that you need to know is that water vapor feedback is independent of CO2. See any book on control theory for explanation why

 

[exoflare]

I’ve pretty much -]discussed/-] evaded all KL has to say on other threads

fixed

 

[lynnvinc]

You’d like for us Catholics to think that way [regarding abortion & it depending on the definition of personhood]…BUT The Holy Father has spoken from the Chair…It is not subjective!!!

Unfortunately there are many non-Catholics in the world, and even Catholics, who do not know what the Holy Father said. So perhaps for them abortion is not a sin, tho it most certainly is for those who understand (through teachings, reason, or conscience) that the fetus is a human life. ((As if we weren’t all fetuses at one time.))

So here we have it – some women having abortions deny the fetus is a human life (tho they understand they are killing something), and some people emitting GHGs (without striving to reduce) deny that we are causing AGW and its harmful effects (tho they would admit they are emitting the GHGs, and that the people during famines who die from starvation are human beings).

Deny, deny, deny. Let’s just hope that their denials are genuine and they truly believe them, and thus are not culpable of sin. Nevertheless, it doesn’t get us “in the know” people off the hook of apprising them of their wrongdoing, and trying to reduce these killings.

 

[kama3]

lynnvic: Thanks. That’s what I was trying to say…