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

[kimmielittle]

You know we covered this on another thread and I’m sorry to say the analysis of your friend (whoever he or she may be in your quote)

The maths you are talking about are mine

They the basics ] are taught in Middle School level classes

 

[lynnvinc]

Oh my my my…So scientist who received money from say KOCH Brothers…may not be bad? You’ve come along way

I’ve long understood that it usually works this way, some climate scientists for whatever reason (legit or not) have some disagreement about AGW – usually along the lines of claiming it is not as strong or dangerous as some others think. They do not claim that AGW is not occurring or that the GH effect is wrong; the Koch brs want scientists with good reputations, not a bunch of dentists. The Koch Brs of the world then step in to fund them and spread their “it’s not so bad” message.

I think sometimes it is a personality thing – the contrarian scientist just wants to be the lone man out with an innovative idea (perhaps that applies to Lindzen and his iris hypothesis). Other times it is scientists who are not climate scientists but have an excellent education in some related science – astrophysicists, nuclear physicists, geologists (not specializing in climate science), engineers, etc – who feel their noses bent out of shape by the findings of the climate scientists and want to insist they are wrong – sort of an ego thing, also perhaps AGW goes against their world view. Sort of like a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I remember in anthropology when some geneticists came up with the mitochondrial DNA tracing back to a single woman in Africa some 200,000 yrs ago, the physical anthropologists (who spend their lives digging in the dirt) sort of got their noses bent out of shape, and didn’t want to accept it for some time.

I gave you the link to the Soros org PDF - Do a search within the PDF for “politicization of science” - What part of “politicization of science” don’t you understand?

I have other better things to do than read it. Even if you are able to sniper shoot down several scientists, there are many more where they come from, and it would start getting ridiculous to say every one of 1000s of scientists are evil jerks, except Lindzen (who BTW probably would not support your CO2 stays in the atmosphere a shorter time than CH4 bec of its molecular weight. (I’ll look for the responses to that; I don’t want to bother the scientists with it again.)

 

[lynnvinc]

Found the “CO2 is in the atmosphere a shorter time than CH4 bec it is heavier” response from David Archer himself (so you can hereafter take it up with him) at realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/much-ado-about-methane/comment-page-2/#comment-224109 :
He thinks that gases settle out of the atmosphere, so heavy ones have a shorter lifetime than light ones? That’s a new one. You are spending time reading this person’s wisdom, why? The five year lifetime for CO2 he quotes could be an exchange time scale, how long an individual CO2 molecule stays in the air before it moves into a plant or the ocean. But exchange fluxes don’t affect atmospheric CO2, only net uptake fluxes. David

 

[kimmielittle]

Other times it is scientists who are not climate scientists but have an excellent education in some related science – astrophysicists, nuclear physicists, geologists (not specializing in climate science),

Glad you brought this up. You do realize that Mr Hansen is an astronomer and astrophysicists - Not a climatologist.

Mr Mann was studying to be a nuclear physicists Thank goodness he stopped - after all he got the Tinjander sediment series upside down and contaminated - can you imagine a nuclear reactor upside down? ]

If you attempt to swing this club,I think you’ll find most AGW - CAGW supporters aren’t climatologists.

Even if you are able to sniper shoot down several scientists,

Processed chesseseses Ma’am…“sniper shoot”?

I believe Mr Hansen asked / accepted the $720,000 from soros org on his own. One doesn’t need to “sniper shoot” the one who commits suicide.

there are many more where they come from, and it would start getting ridiculous to say every one of 1000s of scientists are evil jerks,

Oh my my my…dear dear soul…Whoever taught you such nonsense? You surely haven’t heard anyone here call 1000’s scientists “evil jerks”. It is statements such as this - that make me question just how important it is to protect the “cause” or promote the truth.

except Lindzen (who BTW probably would not support your CO2 stays in the atmosphere a shorter time than CH4 bec of its molecular weight. (I’ll look for the responses to that; I don’t want to bother the scientists with it again.)

Why? Surely, you can do Middle School Maths and physics - can’t you?

You are so sure you can debunk it - do it on your own.

 

[lynnvinc]

Ahhhhhhhhh It IS the Bio-fuel FROM manure …THAT IS THE Black Carbon Soot ] Problem.

India has shown no desire to cut Soot levels.

No, the soot comes mainly from burning wood and kerosene, etc. If gas is made from manure then they can use it to cook, instead of burning wood & kerosene.

Every housewife would love to have a gas stove instead of a kerosene or wood-burning stove; the desire it there. It’s just that gas is limited (it is rationed out only to those who have gas cards) and the gas stoves are much more expensive than kerosene or wood-burning stoves; the latter can be made of simple pottery with 3 pieces sticking up to hold the pot. Economic development in India is uneven – there are still plenty of poor who just can’t afford hardly anything. So it is really helpful if development people can come and help them get into biofuel and solar stoves, so they don’t have to die young from breathing in all that soot and smoke from wood-burning and kerosene.

 

[kimmielittle]

Found the “CO2 is in the atmosphere a shorter time than CH4 bec it is heavier” response from David Archer himself (so you can hereafter take it up with him) at realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/much-ado-about-methane/comment-page-2/#comment-224109 :
He thinks that gases settle out of the atmosphere, so heavy ones have a shorter lifetime than light ones? That’s a new one. You are spending time reading this person’s wisdom, why? The five year lifetime for CO2 he quotes could be an exchange time scale, how long an individual CO2 molecule stays in the air before it moves into a plant or the ocean. But exchange fluxes don’t affect atmospheric CO2, only net uptake fluxes. David

I’ll wait till he has his book peer-reviewed.

I was not taking “exchange time” - I was not talking CO2 Cycle lifetime…Move the pea please

Surely, Mr Archer can provide you with Physical Observational measured evidence for his claim - or do you not want to bother him?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1691&pictureid=11495

Here is IPCC IGNORING all these 36 in this list ] other listed studies of Atmospheric life of the CO2 Molecule

forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1691&pictureid=11496 LARGE

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1691&pictureid=11496

Has Mr Archer falsified all of these other studies 36 here - 37 counting IPCC Because he is claiming that he falsified even IPCC ] - or did he just write a book?

 

[lynnvinc]

Why? Surely, you can do Middle School Maths and physics - can’t you?

You are so sure you can debunk it - do it on your own.

I prefer to have climate scientists do my climate science for me, and dentists to do my dental work, etc. I am okay in doing minor repairs around the house…

 

[kimmielittle]

I prefer to have climate scientists do my climate science for me, and dentists to do my dental work, etc. I am okay in doing minor repairs around the house…

Actually, there is little math…The Mol weights you can look up.

The Physics LAW of Gravity is well known…

it’s everyday physics.

You can home test it with a kite…and two weights.

 

[lynnvinc]

I’ll wait till he has his book peer-reviewed.

I was not taking “exchange time” - I was not talking CO2 Cycle lifetime…Move the pea please

Surely, Mr Archer can provide you with Physical Observational measured evidence for his claim - or do you not want to bother him?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1691&pictureid=11495

Here is IPCC IGNORING all these 36 in this list ] other listed studies of Atmospheric life of the CO2 Molecule

forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1691&pictureid=11496 LARGE

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1691&pictureid=11496

Has Mr Archer falsified all of these other studies 36 here - 3 counting IPCC ] - or did he just write a book?

Don’t want to bother him. I know that is the denialists’ strategy – to take up so much of their time they can’t do their science or communicate it to the public.

I believe him completely. I do not believe you. You are not a climate scientist and have not written peer-reviewed articles to support your claims.

Sorry, but I’ll believe the experts and leave the armchair laypersons to their own musings.

 

[kimmielittle]

Don’t want to bother him. I know that is the denialists’ strategy – to take up so much of their time they can’t do their science or communicate it to the public.

Pardon me…he gets paid via taxpayer money to the university…does he not? He wrote a book did he not? ---- Here again… we see moral ethical compass…Via he doesn’t need to support his claims?

I believe him completely. I do not believe you. You are not a climate scientist and have not written peer-reviewed articles to support your claims.

No, but I have common sense and can tell when being fed an unsupportable claim.

Maybe, you should try it yourself?

I think you will find the kite with the heavier weight needs much more inertia to stay up than the same kite with less weight?

Sorry, but I’ll believe the experts and leave the armchair laypersons to their own musings.

Sooooo…the other 36 studies…weren’t written AND peer-reviewed by experts? C’mon

 

[lynnvinc]

Here is your Archer peer reviewed article about how long CO2 can stay in the atmosphere:
annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206?journalCode=earth

Atmospheric Lifetime of Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Vol. 37: 117-134, 2009.

David Archer,1 Michael Eby,2 Victor Brovkin,3 Andy Ridgwell,4 Long Cao,5 Uwe Mikolajewicz,3 Ken Caldeira,5 Katsumi Matsumoto,6 Guy Munhoven,7 Alvaro Montenegro,2 and Kathy Tokos6

1. 
   *]Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637; email: d-archer@uchicago.edu
   *]School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 3P6 Canada
   *]Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
   *]School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, BS8 1SS England
   *]Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution, Stanford, California 94305
   *]Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455
   *]LPAP—Astrophysique/Géophysique, Université de Liège, B-4000 Liège, Belgium
   
   ABSTRACT: CO2 released from combustion of fossil fuels equilibrates among the various carbon reservoirs of the atmosphere, the ocean, and the terrestrial biosphere on timescales of a few centuries. However, a sizeable fraction of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere, awaiting a return to the solid earth by much slower weathering processes and deposition of CaCO3. Common measures of the atmospheric lifetime of CO2, including the e-folding time scale, disregard the long tail. Its neglect in the calculation of global warming potentials leads many to underestimate the longevity of anthropogenic global warming. Here, we review the past literature on the atmospheric lifetime of fossil fuel CO2 and its impact on climate, and we present initial results from a model intercomparison project on this topic. The models agree that 20–35% of the CO2 remains in the atmosphere after equilibration with the ocean (2–20 centuries). Neutralization by CaCO3 draws the airborne fraction down further on timescales of 3 to 7 kyr.
   
   The full text is available for free at:
   orbi.ulg.ac.be/bitstream/2268/12933/1/Archer-etal-Preprint.pdf
   
   But I’m assuming this doesn’t impress you at all, bec you will never ever no matter what even think for a moment that AGW is happening or even possible, no matter who tries to tell you.
   
   I, for one, would be delighted to come to the conclusion that it is not happening; but that would have to be from scientists I trust and from my own sense of what’s going on. I’d still continue with my mitigation measures bec they are saving me money and reducing other harms, but I’d be very happy that life will not be snuffed out by AGW at least.

 

[lynnvinc]

Pardon me…he gets paid via taxpayer money to the university…does he not?

U of Chicago is a private and exceedingly rich and heavily endowed univ. Of course, he may be getting gov grants. So what does that mean? I have one now to study policing. I don’t have to palaver with the crowds about it. What they expect are reports and publications about results that might be effective in other cities.

The only reason climate scientists are going public and suffering our idiodic questions and silly hypotheses (as if we know better, and they haven’t thought of all the variables) is that AGW is a very serious problem that will be affecting everyone, including them and their children. They are probably shocked that people would not want to leave a viable world for their progeny. That they persist in their science and outreach, despite the vitriol against them, is truly wonderful. They are the heroes of today.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I believe this to be true, though it is neither provable or disprovable. However, we do have the promise of Noah.

Assuming that the events depicted in the story of Noah’s ark is not purely a fictional story portraying theological concepts.

 

[pnewton]

Assuming that the events depicted in the story of Noah’s ark is not purely a fictional story portraying theological concepts.

No, either way, we have the promise, though I do not believe the Bible to be fiction. If it is a narrative myth, we still have the promise and the lesson of God’s divine providence and protection from totally calamity.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

No, either way, we have the promise, though I do not believe the Bible to be fiction. If it is a narrative myth, we still have the promise and the lesson of God’s divine providence and protection from totally calamity.

The promise is made in the context of the event actually happening.

If the event did not happen. Then there is no reason to take that promise literally.

 

[pnewton]

The promise is made in the context of the event actually happening.

If the event did not happen. Then there is no reason to take that promise literally.

I believe differently. First, while I believe it was literal, I think even parables carry a message. It is like saying if the story of the rich man and Lazarus is fiction there is no reason to believe that people go to Hell for neglecting the poor. No. Even stories mean something. I have never heard anyone suggest both that the Bible is fiction and the lessons behind them are not reliable because it is fiction. Obviously those who do not believe this might still have cause to fear global catastrophe.

If Noah is unconvincing to Christians, then I would point to the sparrows, and the lilies of the field. If Jesus is not convincing to Christians, then…

 

[kama3]

It was COOLING not warming that caused that distress to humankind.

It was not cooling per se that harmed humanity, but decline of agricultural production due to cooling. It would have helped if you read that paper

Precipitation patterns are changing, so it’s guaranteed that agricultural production will drop in some regions. As I said ealier, I do not believe in AGW causing a global food shortage, because it will defreeze a lot currently of unusable land in Russia and North America.

But, some regions will suffer. If a country faced with AGW-induced drop in agricultural production also happened to have an economy based on food production (which means most of the Third World), then the situation gets really nasty: no domestic food production and no other products which can be traded for food equals famine. Faced with such prospects, the local government can follow the time-honored tradition and decide to rob the neighboring country.

Again, recall river Jordan: the flow dropped by 90% over the last 50 years. Some of that was due to decreasing rainfall. So humans countered by using increasingly sophisticated irrigation systems. However, an increasingly effective irrigation drains more water from the river, furthering the water deficit (for those downstream). This is the dreaded positive feedback loop: an attempt to counter the problem actually makes it worse. So the situation over there today is that Palestinian people have trouble getting the water to drink, because it is being diverted to support (economically unviable) Israeli agriculture.
Since the region is extremely volatile for religious and political reasons, this is a ticking bomb waiting to go off.

Re: my linking of Revelation of global warming, if you researched the matter you’d know that there is a view in Islamic culture that the Revelation / Qu’ran story about Gog and Magog drinking water is a prophecy about a the Israeli / Palestinian conflict over water. Mind you, it does not matter what the prophecy actually describes, if the people believe that it applies to them, they will think they are doing their divine duty. See e.g. this alimuddin.blogspot.com/2009/03/sign-sea-of-galilee.html

 

[kama3]

Ignorance is NEVER a defense…per abortion.

Again, how is willful ignorance about abortion different from willful ignorance about global warming?

Your claim is basically that there is a papal pronouncement against abortion, and no such pronouncement about GHG emissions. However, there are many other things which are demonstrably evil – their evil can be derived from first principles – yet, these things have never been mentioned in papal pronouncements. In fact, the very reason abortion gets a dedicated section in CCC (and the reason why the issue is controversial) is that the evil of abortion cannot be deduced from first principles (Thou shall not kill) without some additional assumptions about personhood of the fetus.

In cotrast, there is no papal pronouncement about insider trading – although it’s trivial to show that it violates 7th commandment. Does it mean that insider trading is in line with Catholic morality?

The morality of GHG emissions is a very serious problem. The choice basically amounts to killing people in the Thirld World through climate-induced wars and famine by continuing business as usual or throwing the advanced countries into deep recession by draconian emission controls. Neither is acceptable.

However, we will not discuss that. This thread has gone nowhere so far, because for 22 pages your side has failed to accept the underlying principle. And it will not go anywhere in the future as well, as well.

 

[kimmielittle]

Here is your Archer peer reviewed article about how long CO2 can stay in the atmosphere:
annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206?journalCode=earth

Thank you for the link.

But I’m assuming this doesn’t impress you at all, bec you will never ever no matter what even think for a moment that AGW is happening or even possible, no matter who tries to tell you.

Assumptions are dangerous in debate

And you do that a lot Bless the “cause”

Did you read Mr Archers paper?
Did you understand it?

Cleaver Mr Archer, giving all new meaning to " Atmospheric + Lifetime"
.

Lifetime

The lifetime of a greenhouse gas refers to the approximate amount of time it would take for the anthropogenic increment to an atmospheric pollutant concentration to return to its natural level (assuming emissions cease) as a result of either being converted to another chemical compound or being taken out of the atmosphere via a sink. This time depends on the pollutant’s sources and sinks as well as its reactivity. The lifetime of a pollutant is often considered in conjunction with the mixing of pollutants in the atmosphere; a long lifetime will allow the pollutant to mix throughout the atmosphere. Average lifetimes can vary from about a week (sulfate aerosols) to more than a century (CFCs, carbon dioxide).

factclipper.com/glossary/49/letterl#term190

Now Resident Time RT…means what?
WHY… it now has an ALL NEW MEANING

Atmosphere now includes ALL phases That CO2 goes through until it’s neutralized out of it’s whole cycle.

An atmosphere (New Latin atmosphaera, created in the 17th century from Greek ἀτμός [atmos] “vapor”[1] and σφαῖρα [sphaira] “sphere”[2]) is a layer of gases that may surround a material body of sufficient mass,[3] and that is held in place by the gravity of the body. An atmosphere may be retained for a longer duration, if the gravity is high and the atmosphere’s temperature is low. Some planets consist mainly of various gases, but only their outer layer is their atmosphere.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere

Ya just gotta love Climate Science

We have
AGW = Climate Change = Anthropogenic Climate Change.
Acidification = desalinization
Carbon Neutrality = ???
Mitigation of AGW = sorting the trash.
Atmospheric lifetime = CO2 complete cycle
Resident Time - swallowed

My take on Mr Archers paper?
Brilliantly done …It’s how I’d write a hypothesis paper if I didn’t want it t be falsified for 1000 - 100,000 years. My model runs say it’s true, after all.

Question: Would it be rude to ask if Mr Archer has any empirical observational measurements - that supports his claim?

Oh, wait that’s a requirement of Normal Science.

 

[kimmielittle]

It was not cooling per se that harmed humanity, but decline of agricultural production due to cooling. It would have helped if you read that paper

I did Your statement confirms it.