Saturday, October 8, 2016

If You Believe…

If you believe in Andropogenic (caused by humans) Climate Change, then…

So far, we have a Subject and one sentence within the text body of the post, and six periods. Bear with me, and we’ll see if we cans stretch some of those dots out. In regards to Climate Change, there are those who believe the science, those who do not believe the science, and those who might believe, but who don’t think that the evidence is conclusive. Let’s call them believers, atheists and agnostics. The religious connotation of that statement is, I believe apt.

Science and Religion are two sides of the same coin in the sense that you either believe or you don’t. They are entirely different in another sense though. One is based on fact and is self-correcting, while the other is based entirely on faith. In my opinion, there doesn’t need to be a clash at all. A phrase attributed to Jesus in the synoptic bibles reads, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." The original discussion was whether taxes should be paid, but I think that we could make the case for substituting science for government in this case (not that I’d recommend that in general). So just replace the word ‘Caesar’ with ‘Science’, and we’re set.

Okay, there’s one minor problem. That which is getting rendered to Science is getting bigger, and God’s piece of the pie is getting smaller. That’s the problem of a God of the Gaps theory. But even so, we could still make the case that religious faith and science can co-exist. A good many scientists, philosophers and theologians believe that science is true (now there’s a word we could discuss further), but are also still able to maintain religious faith.  

Forgive me. I didn’t quite mean to go off on such a tangent about science and religion. What I did want to do is call attention to the belief in science. I think most people would say they do, but even so, perhaps not quite so many believe that Andropogenic Climate Change is a fact.

How many? Polls vary, but the latest shows that “Sixty-four percent of U.S. adults say they are worried a ‘great deal’ or ‘fair amount’ about global warming”. The percentage appears to be higher in other parts of the developed world. I think that whether you are worried, and therefore believe in climate change depends mostly on your belief in science.

So the remaining thirty-six percent must be the agnostics and atheists. But not (quite) so fast. Some of those who did express concern concede that climate change may be happening, but are agnostic or atheistic as to whether humans have caused it. The polls cited here didn’t address this question, but others have. We’ve evolved on this question too, however. The query about whether global warming is happening at all used to be more in question. Now the polls show that more people do accept that it’s occurring (hurray for at least this aspect of science), but still may not believe that humans are the cause. But there’s science behind the Andropogenic-ism of it as well. A lot of it. So much, that 97% of climate scientists and their scientific papers say so. I know some have questioned those numbers, but it is still as close to a consensus as there is on anything.

Let’s say that you are convinced. Either a) you were already a believer, or b) I convinced you (and I know that’s highly unlikely). Let’s change the focus here from If you believe, to Since you believe.


Since you believe that Andropogenic Climate Change is real, what are you going to do about it? Wouldn’t it then be the most important global issue facing our planet and our species? I sure think so, and I said so in a previous post. Therein I urged you, my Earth-Loving Friends, to cast your vote in this upcoming Presidential Election based on Environmental issues alone. That is the single most important thing you can do to help us out of this hole we’ve been digging for ourselves. Casting your vote in this direction will almost certainly also cast it in favor of other aspects of humanity that are also on the correct side of history.

7 comments:

  1. since I believe............what else can I do? I don't waste water. I recycle and repurpose.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's good, Linda - you're probably keeping your global warming footprint as small as is reasonable. Besides voting for the people who will best care for the planet, you may want to consider changing your electrical power to all renewable sources - I think it's easy and not expensive.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Human caused Climate change skeptic here Dan. Help me understand the science/math in this. A little research and logic:
    Mass of the atmosphere: 5.1480×1018 kg

    Estimated CO2 mass added each year - 8.4 Million Tons


    7 620 354 000 kg (8.4 Million Tons = ~7.6 Billion kg)
    5 148 000 000 000 000 000 kg (Atmosphere mass)

    bring down the numbers to this same rate:
    7.620354 kg
    5,148,000,000.000000 kg 5.15 trillion vs 7.6

    Trying to understand that ratio by using it in what I understand. I understand a gallon.

    3.79 KG in 1 gallon - so 7.6 is close to 2 Gallons added to 5.15 billion gallons of water.

    There are 25.8 billion gallons of water in Hinckley Reservoir. Which is about 5x our example. So using that ratio, it equates to 5x 2 gallons of CO2:

    Each year we add CO2 into our atmosphere at the SAME ratio of adding
    10 gallons into
    Hinckley Reservoir
    over the period of a year.

    There are 90,922 drops in 10 Gallons.
    There are 527,040 minutes in a year.
    So our CO2 added to the atmosphere is like adding 1 drop about every 5 minutes into Hinckley Reservoir.

    How in the world can this be changing the climate?

    - Mike

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Mike,

      I just noticed that your comment is attached to this post. It appears that you had originally attached it to a different one, but then placed it here. I only now (Nov. 15) noticed it. Sorry! Here is my reply - reposted here.
      .........

      It appears that you removed your own comment (it says removed by the author). If you did not intend to remove it, please let me know - I can re-post it by pasting the text from the email that I also received about it.

      For everyone: I greatly appreciate all comments and criticism, including - and even especially - skeptics like Mike. Please keep them coming. In this case (I think I can make some general observations here), my friend Mike provided some (actually a lot) complex numerical information about the amount of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere. Although this is a huge number, compared to the rest of the atmospheric mass, it's quite minuscule. His point was to ask how an amount that is relatively so small, affect our climate?

      I think that without delving into the numbers, which I will not dispute at this point, I have stated the problem as Mike did.

      Here is my response. It doesn't take a lot. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has just surpassed 400 parts per million, which doesn't sound like much. As per the post, that's again relatively not very much. But here's the thing: it only takes a little. And the little that there is does affect the climate.

      The ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere closely correlates with global temperatures, and it has over tens of thousands of years. I know that correlation doesn't automatically imply causation, but it's certainly the first suspect on the list. Of course CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas in the mix. Methane and other chemicals also cause climate change.

      Don't only take my own word for this. Please research on your own. There are mountains of additional evidence out there.

      And if you haven't seen this chart, please check it out.
      https://xkcd.com/1732/

      Dan

      Delete
  4. Hi Dan,

    How do you know "it doesn't take a lot?" You say it is "closely correlated" and refer to 10's of thousands of year history. Factual observed numbers only go back about 65 years. I looked at xkcd.com/1732. Nice charts; how was PPM carbon computed for this? I didn't see that anywhere. I see the sharp increase in temp the most recent 50 years (+1.0C). I'd like to know background methods and numbers to support. This site https://www.currentresults.com/Environment-Facts/changes-in-earth-temperature.php shows +0.8C increase over the last 100 years - twice the time frame and less increase. So I think there may be some liberty taken in one or both web sites. Causes doubt.

    I think its really Impossible to accurately know the PPM carbon for the tens of thousands of years prior to 1950.

    I do research and thats why I am a skeptic that human activity is cause for climate changes.

    Have you considered that 99.999+ percent of the energy input to our earth comes from the sun. Do you realize the watts of energy per second that the sun inputs to the earth? I believe the sun system, has fairly constant energy output, BUT it's NOT EXACTLY constant. Scientific knowledge of plasma fusion systems dictate there are fluctuations. Like a pendulum or in waves. What we think is CONSTANT output from the sun system has changes that IMPACT watt energy absorbed by earth. So this would be my FIRST suspect on why we are observing temperature fluctuations and climate differences over time.

    (following from my research):

    The solar constant is the amount of power that the Sun deposits per unit area that is directly exposed to sunlight.

    OBSERVED FACT: The solar constant is equal to approximately 1,368 W/m2 (watts per square meter) at a distance of one astronomical unit (AU) from the Sun (that is, on or near Earth). Sunlight on the surface of Earth is attenuated by Earth's atmosphere, so that less power arrives at the surface (closer to 1,000 W/m2) in clear conditions when the Sun is near the zenith. Sunlight at the top of Earth's atmosphere is composed (by total energy) of about 50% infrared light, 40% visible light, and 10% ultraviolet light. The atmosphere in particular filters out over 70% of solar ultraviolet, especially at the shorter wavelengths. Solar ultraviolet radiation ionizes Earth's dayside upper atmosphere, creating the electrically conducting ionosphere.

    Amazing number of watt input. The energy input from our sun overwhelms our carbon burning. I'd compare it to the 2011 Japan tsunami on a large bonfire. Well maybe not, but I could crunch some numbers and get a better analogy.

    I'm still a skeptic. The immensity of these systems compared to our (human) input just makes no sense to me. I wonder if anyone else besides you and me are reading this.
    - Mike George

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Dan, I'm doing more reading. here: http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp#_ftn20 here: http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/ And here: http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/faq Still skeptic; better informed.

    - Mike

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Mike, thanks again for commenting. I thought it would be best to address your questions/concerns in a separate post. Please see:
    http://dontpoopinthepool.blogspot.com/2017/01/debate-with-climate-change-skeptic.html

    ReplyDelete