Quick primer for the believers in AGW.

And there it is... our reminder that there is a group of individuals in this country that gets chastised more frequently (and with less cause) than the climate deniers.

It may surprise some of you to learn that the Christian church holds the position that environmental issues are very important. We figure it's not God's will that we destroy his creation to indulge our sin nature.

Before anyone jumps on the giant fast ball I just floated you and goes ad hominem on me, I am well aware that the politicians claiming to be Christians today (a collection of bumbling idiots using the name of God to garner votes) don't make it appear that the Church is pro-environment. Rest assured they are politicians before anything, which means they stand for nothing but their own interests in the end.

Contentious issue, for sure. I take more of a Cliff Mass approach to the argument. The best science available points to AGW being a real thing. Sensational viewpoints, on both sides of the argument, are likely wrong. More likely, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, or, that there is an anthropomorphic effect on climate, but its overall influence is not likely as significant as the hardcores would have you believe.

All this aside, when we look at the smog in our air, even in remote areas, after long periods of high atmospheric pressure, can some of us honestly not see a very real, tangible reason why we should stop burning fossil fuels? No matter what you believe about global warming, can you deny that the status quo is choking us all to a slow death?
Interesting point of view. Just how long do we wait for the middle of the road folks and the deniers to realize that it's too late to fix? I am not sure where you live but in my redneck part of the state the few of us who promote AGW get hammered! Think for a moment about our Conservative Presidential nominee and the huge masses that praise him for calling global warming a hoax. That said, I find your first paragraph without merit. Very happy to hear you agree that we are choking to death. What are you willing to do about it?

I have been a Methodist for 68 years and been associated with only one minister who addressed climate change with the congregation. He also spoke eloquently about overpopulation which soon got him an exit card from the community.
 

jersey

livin' the dream
That was a fun read, good passion.
Got a couple of questions lingering...

How did the Gore family come into money?
What happened to the money given to the Solindra Corporation?
Why did Global Warming re-brand to Climate Change?
If a Methodist preacher can be run out of town for expressing differing views, is it possible for educators to be punitive to students with differing views?
How does CO2 directly raise atmospheric temperature?
If temperature increase is a man-made phenom, how did the ice-age start/end?
Was NASA collecting data at the turn of the 20th Century?
Does CO2 ice-core sampling data provide any insight to the CO2 discussions of today?

Some answers may or may not be inconvenient.
 

Alex MacDonald

that's His Lordship, to you.....
That was a fun read, good passion.
Got a couple of questions lingering...

How did the Gore family come into money?
What happened to the money given to the Solindra Corporation?
Why did Global Warming re-brand to Climate Change?
If a Methodist preacher can be run out of town for expressing differing views, is it possible for educators to be punitive to students with differing views?
How does CO2 directly raise atmospheric temperature?
If temperature increase is a man-made phenom, how did the ice-age start/end?
Was NASA collecting data at the turn of the 20th Century?
Does CO2 ice-core sampling data provide any insight to the CO2 discussions of today?

Some answers may or may not be inconvenient.
Definitely some "inconvenient" questions here.........
 

KerryS

Ignored Member
That was a fun read, good passion.
Got a couple of questions lingering...

How did the Gore family come into money?
What happened to the money given to the Solindra Corporation?
Why did Global Warming re-brand to Climate Change?
If a Methodist preacher can be run out of town for expressing differing views, is it possible for educators to be punitive to students with differing views?
How does CO2 directly raise atmospheric temperature?
If temperature increase is a man-made phenom, how did the ice-age start/end?
Was NASA collecting data at the turn of the 20th Century?
Does CO2 ice-core sampling data provide any insight to the CO2 discussions of today?

Some answers may or may not be inconvenient.
I posted this before and if you want you can look it up and verify the info.

A small item of interest is the gore man didn't make his millions off of his book on global warming or talks on the subject. His money was made from selling a company he help start and smart stock investments for the most part. Money from his book and environmental talks ($175,000 a chat) get donated. Where it gets donated could be questioned.
 

The T.O. Show

Buenos Hatches Ese
All this aside, when we look at the smog in our air, even in remote areas, after long periods of high atmospheric pressure, can some of us honestly not see a very real, tangible reason why we should stop burning fossil fuels? No matter what you believe about global warming, can you deny that the status quo is choking us all to a slow death?
To me this is the most critical component to this discussion, and I can't seem to wrap my head around why the "denier" crowd still fights against clean energy knowing this. We know unequivocally that pollution from fossil fuels is bad for us and our air quality. Let's say, hypothetically, that burning fossil fuels has zero negative impact on temperatures, ice caps, or the ozone. Does it even matter knowing that the air we breath is suffering? Do all of these people need to take a trip to India, China, or Pakistan to see what the end game is here?

Klickrolf, how do you benefit by defending your political agenda and spreading this nonsense? You don't, but we all have a lot to lose. At the very least, by making an effort to transfer our energy consumption away from fossil fuels we can improve our air quality and subsequently our quality of life. It really doesn't matter if you choose to ignore the science about global warming because you can't deny that inhaling carbon monoxide is bad for you, and that should be enough for you to get behind clean energy. I don't want to live in a world that looks like Delhi so please stop trying to f*ck this up for the rest of us...

 
Last edited:
That was a fun read, good passion.
Got a couple of questions lingering...

How did the Gore family come into money?
What happened to the money given to the Solindra Corporation?
Why did Global Warming re-brand to Climate Change?
If a Methodist preacher can be run out of town for expressing differing views, is it possible for educators to be punitive to students with differing views?
How does CO2 directly raise atmospheric temperature?
If temperature increase is a man-made phenom, how did the ice-age start/end?
Was NASA collecting data at the turn of the 20th Century?
Does CO2 ice-core sampling data provide any insight to the CO2 discussions of today?

Some answers may or may not be inconvenient.
I'll try a few of these:
Bush 2's lawyers (not scientists) renamed GW with the more convenient term 0f Climate Change
Educators live by and are governed by District and State policy that disallow such unprofessional conduct.
All AGW related questions should be directed to KickR.
Sorry for the smart ass whip but your questions have been answered countless times.
 

Klickrolf

Active Member
... how do you benefit by defending your political agenda and spreading this nonsense? You don't, but we all have a lot to lose. At the very least, by making an effort to transfer our energy consumption away from fossil fuels we can improve our air quality and subsequently our quality of life. It really doesn't matter if you choose to ignore the science about global warming because you can't deny that inhaling carbon monoxide is bad for you, and that should be enough for you to get behind clean energy. I don't want to live in a world that looks like Delhi so please stop trying to f*ck this up for the rest of us...
An unacceptable perspective but I can't understand why.

CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas. There are two gases in the earth's atmosphere without which living organisms could not exist. Oxygen (O2) and CO2, without the CO2 there would be no Oxygen. CO2 comprises .04% (400ppm) of the atmosphere and Oxygen ~21%. The human portion of that .04% you can search yourself, it's miniscule. CO2 is not a pollutant, it's the fuel that allows the planet to produce carbon based life.

Submariners have lived in environments with over 2000 ppm without problems. Greenhouses double and triple their output with increased CO2. CO2 is the fuel of the planet. Plants require less water as CO2 levels rise. At 150 ppm plants starve, at 400 ppm plants are still starving. At 2000 ppm plants do much better which means the earth's production increases dramatically. Increased carrying capacities everywhere and reduced water uptake requirements...that is planet stewardship!!

CO, carbon monoxide, is produced from partial oxidation of carbon and is a pollutant. CO is removed when combustion is complete. Complete combustion should be our goal!

When you view pictures of New Delhi or any manufacturing city you're not seeing CO2, you are seeing particulates and aerosols which should be removed. Seems to me we look into the sky and don't see what's important. We see the pollution but we don't see the reality. No one wants polluted air, myself included. But I do want more CO2 emitted, a doubling would be a good start.
 
Last edited:

jersey

livin' the dream
I posted this before and if you want you can look it up and verify the info.

A small item of interest is the gore man didn't make his millions off of his book on global warming or talks on the subject. His money was made from selling a company he help start and smart stock investments for the most part. Money from his book and environmental talks ($175,000 a chat) get donated. Where it gets donated could be questioned.
Or Occidental Petroleum...Yes, it was a loaded question to be fair Kerry.

Look, filthy hands are grabbing at the loot made available by skeptical science. Carbon credits will eventually resurface, in my opinion, to offset off-shore untaxable income per US standards. Or to pay back Political favors (Solindra for example).

We are limited to a specific time on this rock. Many feel man is capable of controlling all things, even nature. This is in error. Nature does not give a shit of our opinion. She will win.

An ego check is needed by humans and Nature will eventually take care of the situation. A case in point, Yucutan peninsula, many believe a meteor struck in this region, long time back. Catastophic enviro damage ensued, but Nature cleansed itself. Without man's help...

I could give a hoot about this crisis-of-choice and still respect Nature. Some will and some won't. And some will continue to believe man can manipulate Nature. This rock is estimated at 4.5 billion years, man been around arguable for what, 10-12k years. Check the ego at the door man.
 

KerryS

Ignored Member
Check the ego at the door man.
I said it before, I don't care one way or the other as I will be long gone before any side in this "discussion" can say told you so but I am a firm believer that man will screw things up so bad that our species will eliminate itself. As far as I am concerned we as a species are a natural disaster in slow motion.
 

Alex MacDonald

that's His Lordship, to you.....
man been around arguable for what, 10-12k years. Check the ego at the door man.
Well..... lot longer actually, In his current iteration (defined as anatomically modern), homo sapiens has been around for between 200,000 and 100,000 years depending on which paleoanthropologist you ask.

The Yucutan impact crater is fact, not belief. Said impact contributed to (along with places like the Siberian Traps, Deccan Traps and other supervolcano sites going nuclear as a result of the impact) which as we know, ended the Mesozoic era. the impact itself was not enough to cause worldwide mass extinction, and supervolcanoes have been more than once linked with mass extinctions (the largest of which appears to be the end-Permian, 252 million years ago with the planet losing 96% of marine species, and some 70% of land species.

I'm sending along some links for those who want to learn a little more.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html

http://www.astrobio.net/topic/origi...one-two-punch-caused-the-k-t-mass-extinction/

there's been a bunch of other mass die-offs too, over time. When I think of this, I truly love George Carlin's monologue on global warming, where he says 98% of all life--ALL life on the planet is dead....."We didn't kill them all!".
 
I assume you clicked the highlighted phrase and read the article. That said, I took the liberty of sending your comment to the publisher.

Actually, I not only read the article, but I went to the references (faster than sending anything to the publisher—I’m surprised I wasn’t told to do so, because that is what I tell my students.) By doing so, I read some interesting stuff.

As you know the Cenozoic Era, which we are still in, began ~66-65 MA. The PETM (aka LPTM) occurred ~56 to 55 Mya. Prior to PETM the ocean temp was 10°C - 15°C warmer than today. When PETM occurred there was a 5° to 6°C rise in deep-sea temperature with sea surface temps increasing as much as 8°C at high latitudes in less than 10 ky. Estimates reach up to “8°C of warming at Wilson Lake, New Jersey.” What I find fascinating is that studies have shown “in the fully continental Bighorn Basin, Wyoming” a warming of ~ 5° to 7°C (see p. 492 in the article of McInerney & Wing, 2011). The recovery period took ~200 ky. Going forward, there were two more aberrations. One in 34 Ma and the other in 23 MA. They were noted for cooling.

The title of the current article “Anthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years.”

Question #1: What was the carbon release rate from 66-65 Ma to 56 Ma? How much did it differ from the PETM? If the current release rate is unprecedented from 66 Ma, is not the carbon release rate prior to PETM important to know? The authors only address PETM that happened ~56-55, but yet include this additional 11 Ma in the title and their final paragraph.

Question #2: What is considered normal carbon release rates prior and after the recovery of PETM? Do scientists have those readings? Can't find a source.

Question #3 The authors only looked at one location—Millville, NJ (~5K surface temperature warming). I wonder if the same conclusion would be found for Bighorn Basin. Just curious.

Question #4: What is considered normal carbon release rate—without and with us humans? What were those time periods? We know it was way hotter ~66-65 MA than today. We know there was a rise in temps during PETM. 34 and 23 Ma brought about a cooling. How long did it get back to what is was prior or did it? I ask because of #8 summary point from the article of McInerney & Wing: Research on the PETM and other intervals of rapid global change has been driven by the idea that they provide geological parallels to future anthropogenic warming, but much remains to be done to gain information that can be acted on.(p. 508).

One other issue. Quoting from the current article (p. 328): Regarding impacts on ecosystems, the present/ future rate of climate change and ocean acidification [ref. 12,36,37] is too fast for many species to adapt [ref. 38], which is likely to result in widespread future extinctions in marine and terrestrial environments that will substantially exceed those at the PETM (ref. 13). Not according to PETM research. Summary points #5-#7 from the article of McInerney & Wing (p. 508):

5. Although there was a major extinction of benthic foraminifera, most groups of organisms did not suffer mass extinction.

6. Geographic distributions of most kinds of organisms were radically rearranged by 5–8◦C of warming, with tropical forms moving poleward in both marine and terrestrial realms.

7. Rapid morphological change occurred in both marine and terrestrial lineages, suggesting that organisms adjusted to climate change through evolution as well as dispersal and local extirpation. Where best understood, these evolutionary changes appear to be responses to nutrient and/or food limitation.

One last question: What’s with this alarm about the ocean temps rising? We are not even close to the ocean temps of 66-65 Ma—prior to PETM. Obviously, that time period was also prior to the last glacial period. How do we not know that the temps of 66-65 Ma are normal?