Help!Theologians trying to understand AGW

[Hopex2]

Hi, we're having a climate discussion over on a theology site (Reasonable Faith) and I have to admit, we aren't the best at discussing climate science...

 

We have one poster who seems to be qualified to discuss it, but he denies anthropogenic global warming.

 

An example:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/choose-your-own-topic/climate-change-what-are-actual-scientific-data-logical-arguments-6036281.msg1275589094.html#msg1275589094

 

Would someone be kind enough to look into the discussion and dumb down why he has a point, or, if he doesn't, why?

 

He has said "I'd really like this discussion to be about hard science, the actual data. "

 

But, of course, we aren't very good at cutting through the data to comment on what is the important data set.

 

Thanks in advance.

Here is the post I linked:

 

 

 

What is not honest about the data and multiple scientific peer-reviewed publications that show the residence time (absorption time) for atmospheric CO2 is on the order of ten years, not hundreds of years as assumed by the IPCC?

I'm all for honesty and looking at all the data. That's exactly what I'm asking folks to do. What data am I missing that you think challenges the above issue? Please try to be substantive. I'd really like this discussion to be about hard science, the actual data.

Here's some more that brings into question the integrity of adjustments to surface measurement data, specifically the calculation of air temperatures at the ocean surface. Nite how satellite and surface measurements agree well from 1979-2001, but then diverge afterwards?

Edited January 3, 2017 by Hopex2

[swansont]

I will point out that there is no citation for the claim about residence time of CO2, and the graph that is presented also lacks a citation. Claims that are made which lack reference are easy to make and hard to investigate/rebut. They may be true, but it's also a hallmark of those whose intellectual honesty falls a little short.

 

For example, the residence time. The argument that the time is short is apparently based on looking at an individual average molecule, but the IPCC is looking at how long the concentration in the atmosphere stays elevated.

 

It's like this. A store is crowded. It has a front door to the parking lot but also opens up into a mall. You want to know how long it will stay crowded. On average, a person stays in the store for 20 minutes, so their residence time is 20 minutes. But if that person leaves and goes into the mall and is replaced by someone in the mall, the store is just as crowded as before.

 

The 20 minutes is the wrong variable to look at. People pointing to it are either distracting you from the correct analysis, or just don't really understand the analysis.

 

Similarly, atmospheric CO2 levels will stay elevated for of order a century, even though an individual molecule will be absorbed into the ocean in around 5 years. But that releases a molecule, so the atmospheric concentration hasn't decreased. The characteristic time to decrease the concentration is much longer than 5 years.

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

[Hopex2]

I will point out that there is no citation for the claim about residence time of CO2, and the graph that is presented also lacks a citation. Claims that are made which lack reference are easy to make and hard to investigate/rebut. They may be true, but it's also a hallmark of those whose intellectual honesty falls a little short.

 

For example, the residence time. The argument that the time is short is apparently based on looking at an individual average molecule, but the IPCC is looking at how long the concentration in the atmosphere stays elevated.

 

It's like this. A store is crowded. It has a front door to the parking lot but also opens up into a mall. You want to know how long it will stay crowded. On average, a person stays in the store for 20 minutes, so their residence time is 20 minutes. But if that person leaves and goes into the mall and is replaced by someone in the mall, the store is just as crowded as before.

 

The 20 minutes is the wrong variable to look at. People pointing to it are either distracting you from the correct analysis, or just don't really understand the analysis.

 

Similarly, atmospheric CO2 levels will stay elevated for of order a century, even though an individual molecule will be absorbed into the ocean in around 5 years. But that releases a molecule, so the atmospheric concentration hasn't decreased. The characteristic time to decrease the concentration is much longer than 5 years.

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

Man, I came to the right place!

 

Thank you for that understandable explanation.

 

So, the questions to him might be:

1. Can you provide a citation for the graph

2. You have noted the residence time, but does that include the replacement of CO2 when some CO2 leaves?

 

I don't want to pretend to have a discussion with him, then keep running back here to bother you guys, but this is helpful to, at least, put him on notice that his posts are being read and that he will have to answer questions about his posts; that he doesn't have free reign because he's the 'resident scientist'.

 

Thank you so much!

[swansont]

 

So, the questions to him might be:

1. Can you provide a citation for the graph

2. You have noted the residence time, but does that include the replacement of CO2 when some CO2 leaves?

 

 

For 1, you might include saying that you want to read the material included with it.

For 2, it's a matter of asking the right question. What is the time for CO2 concentration to drop, rather than how long for an individual molecule to leave, since they aren't the same thing.

[Memammal]

Hi, we're having a climate discussion over on a theology site (Reasonable Faith) and I have to admit, we aren't the best at discussing climate science...

With respect, that forum does not appear to be much good at discussing any science...the little that I have read point to a lot of scientific misconceptions.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Memammal

[Moontanman]

I went to the site, it would appear they have little desire to do anything but defend the faith. I honestly do not see what AGW has to do with faith but W.L. Craig seems to be their hero or something. I am never come across anyone qute as influential and dishonest as WLC. I may join and see if I can join a rational discussion...

 

Strike that, the site is nothing but an outlet for WLC's horsefeathers and merchandise.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Moontanman

[Airbrush]

"An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,...states that "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history..."

Edited January 4, 2017 by Airbrush

[Acme]

Hi, we're having a climate discussion over on a theology site (Reasonable Faith) and I have to admit, we aren't the best at discussing climate science...

 

...

Implicit in this statement and the thread title is the idea that theology lacks the critical thinking that is the hallmark of science. It's not an uncommon meme here. The faithful seem content to accept science until they perceive it to contradict this or that article of their faith and the facts be damned.

[ecoli]

Implicit in this statement and the thread title is the idea that theology lacks the critical thinking that is the hallmark of science. It's not an uncommon meme here. The faithful seem content to accept science until they perceive it to contradict this or that article of their faith and the facts be damned.

 

That's a bit harsh. "Natural philosophy" was once the domain of theologians only. That modern evangelicals are not great at critical thinking has more to do with education than 'religiosity' itself. We shouldn't be discouraging a group/person trying to do better!

[Acme]

That's a bit harsh. "Natural philosophy" was once the domain of theologians only. That modern evangelicals are not great at critical thinking has more to do with education than 'religiosity' itself. We shouldn't be discouraging a group/person trying to do better!

How harsh should I be then? But seriously folks, what manner of education do you suppose has blunted the critical thinking? Could it be...oh I don't know...religious education? To be clear, I'm all for the original poster coming here to try and do better than going to a religious forum.

 

Edit: Also, it's a good point you make by specifying 'evangelicals', who seem to be the best credentialed science bashers. The Catholics -more specifically the Pope-, while they have their own issues in the critical thinking realm, don't have a problem with the science behind AGW.

Pope calls global warming sin, says protecting creation is work of mercy

On a day marked by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople as a day of prayer for creation, Pope Francis on Thursday reaffirmed that he regards environmental damage such as global warming as a serious sin against creation and wants Christians to resist it. ...

Edited January 5, 2017 by Acme

[StringJunky]

How harsh should I be then? But seriously folks, what manner of education do you suppose has blunted the critical thinking? Could it be...oh I don't know...religious education? To be clear, I'm all for the original poster coming here to try and do better than going to a religious forum.

 

Edit: Also, it's a good point you make by specifying 'evangelicals', who seem to be the best credentialed science bashers. The Catholics -more specifically the Pope-, while they have their own issues in the critical thinking realm, don't have a problem with the science behind AGW.

Pope calls global warming sin, says protecting creation is work of mercy

I don't have a problem with anybody saying "God did it" as long as it fits with the science

[mistermack]

Pope calls global warming sin, says protecting creation is work of mercy

The Pope should have a serious think about that. Since AGW is intrinsically linked to the level of human population, something which he is doing his very best to boost to the maximum.

So which is the greater sin, using a condom, or causing loads more warming?

[Essay]

The Pope should have a serious think about that. Since AGW is intrinsically linked to the level of human population, something which he is doing his very best to boost to the maximum.

So which is the greater sin, using a condom, or causing loads more warming?

 

The Pope might suggest that AGW is intrinsically linked to the level of consumption by that population, rather than the actual level of human population. It is the footprint of the population, for good or bad, that makes the difference. As the Pope said in his encyclical, Laudato Si:

 

“The pace of consumption, waste and environmental change has so stretched the planet’s capacity that our contemporary lifestyle, unsustainable as it is, can only precipitate catastrophes, such as those which even now periodically occur in different areas of the world.” –161

 

That is why the New Zealand bishops asked what the commandment “Thou shall not kill” means when “twenty percent of the world’s population consumes resources at a rate that robs the poor nations and future generations of what they need to survive”. –95

 

 

“The impact of present imbalances is also seen in the premature death of many of the poor, in conflicts sparked by the shortage of resources, and in any number of other problems which are insufficiently represented on global agendas.” –48

 

The Pope also mentions how certain populations “…need to acknowledge the scandalous level of consumption in some privileged sectors of their population….” –172

“In the end, a world of exacerbated consumption is at the same time a world which mistreats life in all its forms.” --230

 

“In this sense, it is essential to show special care for indigenous communities and their cultural traditions. They are not merely one minority among others, but should be the principal dialogue partners, especially when large projects affecting their land are proposed. For them, land is not a commodity but rather a gift from God and from their ancestors who rest there, a sacred space with which they need to interact if they are to maintain their identity and values. When they remain on their land, they themselves care for it best.” –146

 

"What is needed is a politics which is far-sighted and capable of a new, integral and interdisciplinary approach to handling the different aspects of the crisis." –197

 

Ultimately, I think you’ll agree that….

”There can be no ecology without an adequate anthropology.” –118

“The poor and the earth are crying out.” –246

~

[mistermack]

The pope of course saw the hypocrisy embedded in his arrogant stance, and had his defence ready.

 

He knows that people won't change their consumption in response to anything he says. But, he's just covering his back.

 

In the real world, each new person is going to generate a huge volume of CO2 in their lifetime.

And many of those people are conceived as a direct result of his words.