what is the physics of carbon that suggest that 0,01% increase can be a significant GHG?
chazwin
greenhouse gas.
According to radiometric dating of Carbon isotopes it is thought the
the amount of CO2 has increased from 0.028% - 0,038% in the last 100
years.
Unless Carbon has some magical properties is seems unlikely that such
tiny concentrations should cause any significant increase in
temperature, even-though it is a greenhouse gas.
Can any one help me find the scientific evidence?
I don't want to the political answer, nor the circumstantial answer,
nor any sceptic/denier/doubter information as I have heard it all.
What I want is the basic physical science of carbon that suggests that
a 0,01% increase can be held responsible for a proposed 1 degree
increase in temperature.
archytas
archytas
the work around 1900. This from Wiki:
Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and first
speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through
the greenhouse effect.[3] He was influenced by the work of others,
including Joseph Fourier. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of
the moon by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the
Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of CO2
and water vapour. Using 'Stefan's law' (better known as the Stefan
Boltzmann law), he formulated his greenhouse law. In its original
form, Arrhenius' greenhouse law reads as follows:
if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression,
the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic
progression.
This simplified expression is still used today:
ΔF = α ln(C/C0)
Don't mistake any of this with 'greenhouse science' - it's basic
physics and chemistry and works at the bench in every experiment we do
in stuff like how much heat comes out if we lob a sliver of magnesium
in an acid etc. - stuff you will have done - and in stuff like
creating Bose-Einstein Condensates in which to trap light as matter
(Lene Hau). You should grok after a trip to Wiki. This question is
at the level of trying to get 12 year olds into a chemical explanation
of how rusting takes place, not at all easy as scientific
understanding is as rare as rocking horse droppings.
chazwin
All the stuff that is out there point to CO2 as a GHG, but none of it
has quantitative information.
What worries me is the tiny amount of CO2, what the limits are due to
the narrowness of the radiation spectrum it can absorb, is CO2 able to
change the properties of the air as a whole or does the temperature
change rely on its concentration.
There seems to be an implication that CO2 prevents heat leaving. Would
Mars not be hotter with nearly 96% CO2? There has to be limits.
On Dec 21, 1:41 am, archytas <archy...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> The work on this is not new - a Swede called Arenheus (spelling) did
> the work around 1900. This from Wiki:
> Arrhenius developed a theory to explain the ice ages, and first
> speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the
> atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through
> the greenhouse effect.[3] He was influenced by the work of others,
> including Joseph Fourier. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of
> the moon by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the
> Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of CO2
> and water vapour. Using 'Stefan's law' (better known as the Stefan
> Boltzmann law), he formulated his greenhouse law. In its original
> form, Arrhenius' greenhouse law reads as follows:
> if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression,
> the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic
> progression.
> This simplified expression is still used today:
> ÄF = á ln(C/C0)
archytas
field collapsed. Venus, I seem to remember has loads of CO2 and is
unpleasantly hot - though not, as I understand because of the CO2.
There is loads of quantitative research, it's just that the media
thinks no one can be arsed with any of it. You are conflating a 'tiny
amount' of CO2 with its trace presence on a scale of vastness you
don't grok. Your point has a compelling logic - when I put it to non-
scientists their heads start to nod. It's reasonable initial
thinking, but fades when the facts come out.
The essential argument starts with the properties of CO2 as a
molecule. Light generally doesn't affect it much, but three
frequencies of infrared make the molecule bend because it absorbs
them. All this kind of stuff is known as the result of experiments -
in my day you'd go to some volume of The Handbook of Physics and
Chemistry for the data. We can measure the amount of sunlight hitting
the Earth, know the Earth's size and can apply standard black body
calculations. These leave a discrepancy between the Earth's
theoretical temperature and actual measurements, so either black body
is bolloxs or we look for a model to explain this. This leads to
greenhouse theory (which in conjunction with orbital forcing brings
the sums back in order. Small experiments done by other than BBC
patronising goons give the basic figures which can them be expanded
into the estimates of total greenhouse gases, of which CO2 is a minor
but substantial part. The models are quite complicated and have to
take collisions between molecules into account. The sums are
basically what the IPCC has put out. Most people are simply so poor
at science they can't get this far.
The models may be wrong. Orbital forcing, for instance, is thought to
vary the amount of sunlight hitting certain latitudes by as much as
25% (hence the ice ages), which is obviously big in comparison with
CO2 effects, though the amplification model of greenhouse warming may
be enough to prevent the 'next' ice age. The role of CO2 in this is
marginal, but marginal effects often amplify. 96% of sweet FA is, of
course, much more marginal than parts per million in a lot. Spark
plugs are a negligible weight in my car, but the sod won't run without
them.
There is a wider point similar to yours as to whether the marginal
effects are enough given the percentage variations in the models, but
this really starts in quantitative review and qualitative questions as
to whether the models are right even in the sense of being approximate
enough. Somewhere in this Chaz, is something like me trying to teach
the electro-chemistry of rusting to 12 years old who don't know what
iron is (one classic answer because I'd just done something explosive
with magnesium to wake them up, was that rusting happens because of
the magnesium - you must have had similar classics in your own
teaching).
Sue and I started a conversation to establish what we really knew
about 'global warming' and the answer was pretty alarming and not far
off sweet FA. We found a few papers and a book, had a bit of a read,
noticing we were excluding the vast majority of Internet bull. Our
conclusion so far is that the real arguments are still in the margins
of a load of hot air. We didn't find reason to doubt the CO2 basics
though - it lets sunlight in because it doesn't absorb those
frequencies, but does absorb the bounce back infrared and this is
retained in a complex collision network and stays in part of the
atmosphere. This is a confirmation of basic science. The models hang
together and the sums work. The questions are not about basic CO2
absorption, but there are questions about the complex models of
exchange and balances. One would hope these scientific arguments are
defeasible, subject to change on new facts and new models. Many
papers are, in fact, of the 'you left this out' or 'what if' kind.
They themselves have to be subject to being bagged-off. I'm afraid
this is the fate of your initially interesting conjectures, a bit like
the creationist asking 'where are the transition fossils then, evil
atheist bastard?' - the answer being 'over there, have a look'. You
just don't know enough here. What's really interesting is that the
case hasn't been made properly and concisely even for people like us.
Answers to your question start with getting to grips with black body
radiation, the sums of that and then looking about in basic science
for reasons to change the sums to retain the basic science - this
information is widely available, both in qualitative modelling and as
the spreadsheet sums.
chazwin
On Dec 21, 3:49 pm, archytas <archy...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> Come on Chaz - most of Mars' atmosphere did one when the magnetic
> field collapsed.
Er - 'one' what?
The point I was making is that the numpties on the other NGs who
support AGW assume that more CO2 necessarily means more heat, but
there has to be a limit to the amount of heat according to the band
with of the radiation.
After a while more does not mean more.
Venus, I seem to remember has loads of CO2 and is
> unpleasantly hot - though not, as I understand because of the CO2.
CO2 plays a role but there is much more besides, including a range of
acids.
> There is loads of quantitative research, it's just that the media
> thinks no one can be arsed with any of it. You are conflating a 'tiny
> amount' of CO2 with its trace presence on a scale of vastness you
> don't grok.
Grok?
Let's hope so. The models bouncing around in the mid 1970s resulted in
a bif ice-age scare. I imagine you are old enough to remember it.
WIth a background in archaeology I know only too well that we are
currently in an interstadial and the next ice-age is fast becoming a
little overdue.
> The role of CO2 in this is
> marginal, but marginal effects often amplify. 96% of sweet FA is, of
> course, much more marginal than parts per million in a lot. Spark
> plugs are a negligible weight in my car, but the sod won't run without
> them.
Not a very good analogy, you might as well have mentioned the
cigarette lighters.
>
> There is a wider point similar to yours as to whether the marginal
> effects are enough given the percentage variations in the models, but
> this really starts in quantitative review and qualitative questions as
> to whether the models are right even in the sense of being approximate
> enough. Somewhere in this Chaz, is something like me trying to teach
> the electro-chemistry of rusting to 12 years old who don't know what
> iron is (one classic answer because I'd just done something explosive
> with magnesium to wake them up, was that rusting happens because of
> the magnesium - you must have had similar classics in your own
> teaching).
I still get the feeling that the world and the necessary factors that
contribute to this issue are still beyond the ability of scientists
and their models. Coupled with the will to succeed and the necessity
to continue keep getting the grants, tends to press a certain
direction for assumptions upon which models are designed.
GW seems to be the new Kuhnian paradigm and I can't help but think
that the next generation will look back in amusement as we do with
eugenics, social Darwinism and phogistan. Or they could be fried to a
crisp!
> Sue and I started a conversation to establish what we really knew
> about 'global warming' and the answer was pretty alarming and not far
> off sweet FA. We found a few papers and a book, had a bit of a read,
> noticing we were excluding the vast majority of Internet bull. Our
> conclusion so far is that the real arguments are still in the margins
> of a load of hot air. We didn't find reason to doubt the CO2 basics
> though - it lets sunlight in because it doesn't absorb those
> frequencies, but does absorb the bounce back infrared and this is
> retained in a complex collision network and stays in part of the
> atmosphere. This is a confirmation of basic science. The models hang
> together and the sums work. The questions are not about basic CO2
> absorption, but there are questions about the complex models of
> exchange and balances. One would hope these scientific arguments are
> defeasible, subject to change on new facts and new models. Many
> papers are, in fact, of the 'you left this out' or 'what if' kind.
> They themselves have to be subject to being bagged-off. I'm afraid
> this is the fate of your initially interesting conjectures, a bit like
> the creationist asking 'where are the transition fossils then, evil
> atheist bastard?'
Oddly I was called a 'creationist' for doubting the CO2 science! But
then I do not expect any sense from a person that did not really
understand my question.
archytas
There is a point at which more CO2 would be just like another set of
shutters nailed over several others already blocking light. This
point has long been factored in. Mars' atmosphere is thought to have
been a lot thicker once. At some point in a pub crawl my mates tend
to say 'are we doing one' when they want to move on. Usual notions
for Mars' atmosphere 'doing one' are:
Possible causes for the depletion of a previously thicker martian
atmosphere include the following:
Catastrophic collision by a body large enough to blow away a
significant percentage of the atmosphere;
Gradual erosion of the atmosphere by solar wind; and
On-going removal of atmosphere due to electromagnetic field and solar
wind interaction.
Others suggest its magnetic field 'walked away' - hence that crap move
The Core. It's not the CO2 on its own or even in combination with
other stuff like methane. On Venus it's held warming isn't greenhouse
at all. Indeed, 'greenhouse' is a misnomer - greenhouses heat up by
restricting convection. This is the gist:
There is general agreement that the Earth is naturally warmed to some
extent by atmospheric gases, principally water vapor, in what is often
called a "greenhouse effect". The Earth absorbs enough radiation from
the sun to raise its temperature by 0.5 degrees per day, but is
theoretically capable of emitting sufficient long-wave radiation to
cool itself by 5 times this amount. The Earth maintains its energy
balance in part by absorption of the outgoing longwave radiation in
the atmosphere, which causes warming (black body and all such jazz).
On this basis, it has been estimated that the current level of warming
is on the order of 33 degrees C. That is to say, in the absence of so-
called greenhouse gases, the Earth would be 33 degrees cooler than it
is today, or about 255 K (-0.4° F). There would be little need to
keep the voddie in the freezer. Water is by far the most important.
Although estimates of the contribution from water vapor vary widely,
many sources place it between 90 and 95% of the warming effect, or
about 30-31 of the 33 degrees. Carbon dioxide, although present in
much lower concentrations than water, absorbs more infrared radiation
than water on a per-molecule basis and contributes about 84% of the
total non-water greenhouse gas equivalents or about 4.2-8.4% of the
total greenhouse gas effect (this is a range bigger than economists
often use in their 'highly accurate' predictions). This 33 degree
increase in temperature is not caused simply by absorption of
radiation by the gases themselves. Much of the 33 degree effect is
caused by the Earth's adaptation to higher temperatures, which
includes secondary effects such as increased water vapor, cloud
formation, and changes in albedo or surface reflectivity caused by
melting and aging of snow and ice. Accurately calculating the relative
contribution of each of these components presents major difficulties.
We aren't guessing, but it's clear there is room for dispute.
Infrared radiation comes from two sources: the sun and the earth's
surface. CO2 absorbs some of the infrared radiation and re-emits it in
a random direction. If there is more CO2, the radiation is absorbed
closer to the source. For radiation from the sun, this theory predicts
that increased CO2 would cause cooling in the upper atmosphere and
warming in the lower atmosphere. Thermometer measurements show that
the lower atmosphere was warming between about 1906 and 1944 and
between about 1976 and 1998, and either constant or cooling at other
times. The validity of the temperature figures is hotly disputed.
Traditionally, greenhouse gas levels are presented as dimensionless
numbers representing parts per billion (ppb) multiplied by a scaling
factor (global warming potential or GWP) that allows their relative
efficiency of producing global temperature increases to be compared.
For carbon dioxide, this scaling factor is 1.0. The factors for
methane and nitrous oxide are 21 and 310, respectively, while sulfur
hexafluoride is 23,900 times more effective than carbon dioxide. The
GWP from carbon dioxide is primarily due to the position of its
absorption bands in the critical longwave infrared region at 2, 3, 5,
and 13-17 microns. The increase in the global energy balance caused
by greenhouse gases is called "radiative forcing".
Geologists tell us that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is
on the order of five to ten years. In contrast, the IPCC says it is
50-200 years. Whatever the actual number, there is no question that
emitting CO2 will cause it to accumulate over short periods. But other
processes, such as sequestration, also work against it, causing the
levels to decrease rapidly over time.The arithmetic of absorption of
infrared radiation also works to decrease the linearity. Absorption of
light follows a logarithmic curve as the amount of absorbing substance
increases. It is generally accepted that the concentration of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere is already high enough to absorb almost all
the infrared radiation in the main carbon dioxide absorption bands
over a distance of only a few km. Thus, even if the atmosphere were
heavily laden with carbon dioxide, it would still only cause an
incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption over current
levels.Very little of the radiation from the sun at the wavelengths at
which carbon dioxide absorbs reaches the surface of the Earth
directly. Similarly, very little of the radiation at these wavelengths
that originates at the surface makes it all the way to space. Most of
the infrared at these wavelengths is produced by black body radiation
from objects that have been heated up by absorbing radiation at
shorter wavelengths. This means that even if the carbon dioxide levels
increase, it will have little effect on the total amount of infrared
radiation that is absorbed from the sun. The main effect would be to
trap radiation originating at the surface at lower levels in the
atmosphere than before, where it would be slightly more difficult for
the heat to be re-radiated back into space. This is the principle on
which most of the global warming predictions are based.Most of the
ultraviolet light (below 0.3 microns) is absorbed by ozone (O3) and
oxygen (O2). Carbon dioxide has three large absorption bands in the
infrared region at about 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns. Water has several
absorption bands in the infrared, and even has some absorption well
into the microwave region. There is already sufficient CO2 in the
atmosphere to absorb almost all of the radiation from the sun or from
the surface of the earth in the principal CO2 absorption bands.
The net effect of all these processes is that doubling carbon dioxide
would not double the amount of global warming. In fact, the effect of
carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or
some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is
the same as the previous increase. The reason for this is that,
eventually, all the longwave radiation that can be absorbed has
already been absorbed. It would be analogous to putting more and more
blankets on your bed -- it soon reaches the point where doubling the
number of blankets can't make it any warmer. We may currently be at
that point where the current ppms are analogous to one blanket and
doubling them would be like adding a second.
If we start to sweat, you can bank on someone insisting we don't add
any more water vapour to the atmosphere. Pressures on Venus make even
absorption comparisons bad science by the way. My guess is that the
IPCC has over-stated the case, but this isn't because of the puny
amounts of CO2 -these are currently in critical concentrations, in the
sense that variations have fairly substantial effects. The future
memory may well be that carbon trading was as big a scam as
Collateralised Derivative Options. Go forth and grok mate - I'd use
stronger language but know we are both shrinking violets and would
fade away before the sun gets its chance to fry us to crisps! Beer's
Law is part of the calculation (with limitations) - I shall raise a
glass tonight to the rest of what you say.
Sam Carana
There is plenty of scientific information available on this topic. I
think your position results from a philosophical line of thinking,
which forces you into denial. I suggest that you rethink the
fundamentals of your philosophy. If you like, I'm happy to go over the
philosophical fundamentals with you, to see if it adds up.
Cheers,
Sam Carana
> ...
>
> read more »
archytas
Been a while. I wouldn't have bothered with such a lengthy (yet still
partial) explanation if I didn't like Chaz. I'm by no means convinced
by the rush to green through carbon restrictions myself - what he says
other than on the issue of the trace CO2 is pretty sound. Nice offer
- I don't suppose we could extend it to the 12 year olds I've just
wasted a few sessions on? I don't usually teach in schools, but was
asked by a friend to bring a few of my more explosive demonstrations
along to see if she could get at her class through entertainment (my
grandson goes there so I felt obliged). Little swines could do with a
bit of philosophical fundamentals! Bring a big stick!
> ...
>
> read more »
archytas
what Chaz may be on about when he mentions saturation. There is a
lot of stuff like this about - it's very well presented and could
quite easily look like science to the lay eye. In fact it's trash and
so well organised one has to suspect a real case of vested interests
intentionally trying to confuse the issues.
> ...
>
> read more »
Sam Carana
It's a good scientific principle to keep the door open for other
explanations than what seems to be the explanation that is widely
accepted. However, if the widely-accepted view among scientists is
that the future of our civilization is at risk, due to excessive
emissions, than it makes sense to strive to reduce emissions.
What puzzles me most is that there are so few scientists trying to
work out how such reductions can best be achieved. In this case, it's
not so much a question of physics, it's more up to economists,
accountants, diplomats and the like to get their act together.
That in itself is also a struggle within science. Disciplines like
political science, trend analysis and prognosis, economics and
accountancy, law, political science, psychology and other social
sciences have sometimes been regarded as second-rank types of science,
as if the "hard" science such as physics, chemistry and yes,
climatology, were based on "truth", while other studies were merely
"opinions" and personal views.
The struggle in Copenhagen has made it clear that, what we need(ed) is
some robust science from areas such as political science, economics,
diplomacy, and other social sciences. A huge amount of money is spent
on efforts to verify whether temperatures are rising, etc, but - as it
turned out - what we need most now is for science to compare the
various political instruments on their merits, such as subsidies,
taxes, emissions trading schemes, standards, border adjustments and
diplomacy.
Cheers
Sam Carana
> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group.
> To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
>
>
>
chazwin
On Dec 22, 2:34 am, Sam Carana <sam.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Archytas,
>
> It's a good scientific principle to keep the door open for other
> explanations than what seems to be the explanation that is widely
> accepted. However, if the widely-accepted view among scientists is
> that the future of our civilization is at risk, due to excessive
> emissions, than it makes sense to strive to reduce emissions.
>
> What puzzles me most is that there are so few scientists trying to
> work out how such reductions can best be achieved. In this case, it's
> not so much a question of physics, it's more up to economists,
> accountants, diplomats and the like to get their act together.
Most scientists are too busy building models that actually say
something positive rather than speculative to have time suggesting
ways to reduce emissions, especially since the role of those emission
is not fully understood.
Sadly the whole issue is in the hands of the politicians who seem to
have their eyes fixedly on CO2 like a one trick pony. This rag-doll is
now the focus of political interests which want to see the rise of
nuclear power; and massive excuse to further the the vitality out of
the economy; a further excuse to seek bio-fuels with the consequent
further destruction of rain forest environments and the acquisition of
land which would be better used for the production of food for a
starving world.
And all this to avoid a highly speculative 1 or 2 degree rise in
temperature that scientists are still arguing over.
>
> That in itself is also a struggle within science. Disciplines like
> political science, trend analysis and prognosis, economics and
> accountancy, law, political science, psychology and other social
> sciences have sometimes been regarded as second-rank types of
> science,
> as if the "hard" science such as physics, chemistry and yes,
> climatology, were based on "truth", while other studies were merely
> "opinions" and personal views.
Sorry but climatology is not as hard as physics, it is far more akin
to economy and sociology. If the climate were like a billiard table
then they would not have taken over 100 years to say something
definite about CO2s role in the atmosphere.
>
> The struggle in Copenhagen has made it clear that, what we need(ed) is
> some robust science from areas such as political science, economics,
> diplomacy, and other social sciences. A huge amount of money is spent.
What Copenhagen has made clear is that we had all better prepare for
climate change, whatever form that may take be it warming or an over-
due return to the ice-age, because one thing is for sure we are NEVER
going to agree on an International stage to do anything effective.
> on efforts to verify whether temperatures are rising, etc, but - as it
> turned out - what we need most now is for science to compare the
> various political instruments on their merits, such as subsidies,
> taxes, emissions trading schemes, standards, border adjustments and
> diplomacy.
That might be useful is Climate change can be understood from carbon
science - it cannot.
>
> Cheers
> Sam Carana
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 1:08 PM, archytas <archy...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> >http://nov55.com/ntyg.htmlhas an apparently well-argued case for
archytas
general case in science - core research programmes with anomalies and
speculation. What I can't stand about the global warming stuff is
that I do almost completely agree with Chaz - perhaps as much as
blokes like us would ever want to agree or need to to act if there was
anything we could do - and yet the basic scientific explanations are
missing, or at least if they are there access requires a lot of
research skill and scientific knowledge.
There is a basic calculation. This assumes CO2 absorbs infra-red
emitted by the Earth. Bonds in CO2 bend and stretch and then emit
photons in a more or less random direction, 50% coming 'back to us'.
We can 'weigh' the CO2. We know the energy equations. So there is a
simple calculation about how much energy could lead to 'extra
warming'. I'm OK up to about here. Questions as to where the CO2
absorbs the radiation arise, which bring in the 'saturation argument',
which I assume to be about much of the absorption taking place not far
from the Earth's surface (perhaps 100 metres or so). Experiments in
this area by sceptics and pro tend to agree. Schneider, Kucerovsky,
and Brannen (Appl. Opt. 28:5, 1998) give an absorption coefficient at
9.90 ± 1.49 cm-1 atm-1 for low concentrations of CO2 in a 1-atm
nitrogen atmosphere at 4.2 microns. This works out to 376 absorbance
units per km for 380 ppm CO2, which is about as close to 100%
absorption as you can get. Heinz Hug, a global warming skeptic,
measured a similar value (0.03 absorbance units/10 cm for 357 ppm at
15μm) ( http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm).
Some leap from here to conclude CO2 is broadly irrelevant, others that
the effects will not be as severe as the IPCC has it. What I want to
see is scientists arguing this out and leaving the data, models and
argument around so I can get some kind of grok, not be told by some
dire politician like Brown that I'm a flat-earther if I don't
believe. I also don't want to put my own books on hold and spend a
year trying to find out the 'truth'. The absence of clear arguments
for many is much the same as my 12 year olds not knowing about rusting
- they just aren't looking and probably lack the capability. Let's
face it the media would struggle to put even these facts out. I
realised long ago I was convinced on trust - it was the patronising
pro 'arguments' that put me off (Gore etc.) - looking around I find I
just can't find out. The IPCC reports leave me as dead as Hutton,
Butler and the current Iraq enquiry farce which simply tell me what I
thought blatantly obvious at the time is true.
There are other, much more decent reasons to go green than 'carbon'.
If we are measuring the amount of energy hitting Earth and leaving it
and have a model that explains it all and includes how much of this
(through measurement) is down to CO2 (and where) I haven't spotted
it. There are empirical models that tend to suggest what we are
modelling more theoretically may be either wrong or in need of
adjustment. Science is always thus, until we have got approximate
enough. My own preference is for a new quality of life politics and
to get our current leadership systems out of decision-making as far as
we can. The small ppm or ppb argument doesn't bother me - the ozone
layer is very thin in these terms and gases do 'work' in very small
concentrations. I have forgotten how much CO2 we can breathe as a
percentage - presumably we don't want to get to that. Lomberg has
made some decent arguments along Chaz's later lines
> > >http://nov55.com/ntyg.htmlhasan apparently well-argued case for
> ...
>
> read more »
chazwin
There is an old saying about beware that you might actually get what
you wish for.
When I was 18 I did the first ever year of an Environmental Studies A-
level, around 1978. I knew all about acid-rain, photochemical smog,
CFCs and the ozone layer. But I especially knew all about the
greenhouse effect. I joined Greenpeace in those days and would bang on
about all these issues to anyone I thought would be interested. This
is when absolutely no one else I knew had heard of any of it.
I always wished for the greenhouse effect to be centre stage.
Now that it is I am shocked and astounded at the puerile debate.
I cheered when CFCs were banned, though the science was still somewhat
speculative, banning CFCs did not do any harm. The CO2 issue is on a
completely different level.
I just think that more nuclear and more bio-fuels is more likely to
damage the earth than another 0.01% of CO2, especially when it is
possible that more CO2 does not necessarily mean more temperature
increase due to limits on absorption at its specific spectrum band.
> 15μm) (http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm).
I do know - we start to feel bad at a full 1 % - we might get a slight
headache. Interestingly enough I also learned from my A-level all
those years ago that plants will demonstrate accelerated growth at up
to the same 1%, but not beyond it. That is why horticulturalists use
fuel heaters in their poly tunnels. We are a long way off that figure.
> > > >http://nov55.com/ntyg.htmlhasanapparently well-argued case for
> ...
>
> read more »
garshagu
holding responsible the great wobbling of the earth thus sometimes
making the poles assume relative positions that resemble the imaginary
equator thus making the poles to get hotter. What are the comparative
temperatures of the poles at any point in time? Have they
simulteneously gone hotter? Has the realtive ratio remained constant?
Now, the earth, as other planetary bodies, have been spinning for
millions of years and generating heat of some sort (or the entire
atmospheric thing cascadding earth for instance), i stand to ber
corrected: don't this cummulative effect make the pannets grow or
expand and in expanding wont gases respectively contained there-in
increase in quantity thus lending claim to the so called CO2 increase?
After all physicists still believe in the big bang theory - which
implies that things are getting bigger or larger or more volumnous. We
need more experiments to prove or disprove that earth's size, or even
sun's size, for instance is still what it was half a million years
ago.
Atovigba.
archytas
once, and isn't the oxygen only there in sufficient quantities for us
because of very long-term build-up? It is, of course, because of the
ppm scale that the system may be at some threshold. We piss-ants, as
Lovelock reminds us, are unlikely to screw the planet, only our place
on it. I think it's likely the system is more complex than any of the
models and these are not adequate. We haven't examined the IPCC
reports, which are easily available, found what is being said about
the saturation argument and tested our understandings (not much) and
now have someone aboard who has thrown in an old Dilbert joke on
expansion into the fray.
If you ain't careful Chaz, you'll sound like one of those dreadful ex-
commies who write 'Darkness at Noon' whilst raping friends' wives, or
the child who has just realised Santa Claus is an abuser. I know just
what you mean though - pretty much everything put in front of us to
believe in turns to rat shit, yet we seem to queue up for more.
The IPCC should have opened the case up for world-wide public scrutiny
and put together some decent opportunities for pro and sceptic to get
their arguments out so we didn't end up with loads of old wives' tales
and Newsnight ninnies getting in the way of what was really being
said. It has failed completely, which I say with complete certainty
having only scanned most of the documentation! But it has - it hasn't
made the arguments plain, open and understandable. Nuclear, of
course, is little to put up with in comparison with a frying planet if
the small increases in ppm are actually so dangerous. Of course, if
the IPCC is right there are very traditional ways to sort it out. A
cull would work 'nicely'.
archytas
worming.
chazwin
On Dec 23, 12:51 pm, archytas <archy...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> I seem to remember there was a lot more CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere
> once, and isn't the oxygen only there in sufficient quantities for us
> because of very long-term build-up?
It seems it was mostly CO2, until nature invented algae. I'm not sure
what limits the O2, but if concentration becomes too high fire breaks
out simultaneously in forests.
Maybe Lovelock was always right. There is a scary logic though. Gaia
only exists via necessity, and has only happened because living things
happen to be here, rarely, unusually in the universe - but there is no
wilful force that will somehow work it all out to preserve us to
preserve the best of all possible worlds - we are temporary.
It is, of course, because of the
> ppm scale that the system may be at some threshold. We piss-ants, as
> Lovelock reminds us, are unlikely to screw the planet, only our place
> on it. I think it's likely the system is more complex than any of the
> models and these are not adequate. We haven't examined the IPCC
> reports, which are easily available, found what is being said about
> the saturation argument and tested our understandings (not much) and
> now have someone aboard who has thrown in an old Dilbert joke on
> expansion into the fray.
> If you ain't careful Chaz, you'll sound like one of those dreadful ex-
> commies who write 'Darkness at Noon' whilst raping friends' wives, or
> the child who has just realised Santa Claus is an abuser. I know just
> what you mean though - pretty much everything put in front of us to
> believe in turns to rat shit, yet we seem to queue up for more.
I had a lot of respect and sympathy for an idealised version of
Marxian politics when I was younger, but that was due to the fact I
was so deprived. Despite me denying the numerous warnings that I would
loose my left leanings when I got older - here I am, an ex-commie. I
don't do rape though, but I always knew that Santa was dubious. As for
writing, my style and interest would be closer to "The Sleepwalkers".
> The IPCC should have opened the case up for world-wide public scrutiny
> and put together some decent opportunities for pro and sceptic to get
> their arguments out so we didn't end up with loads of old wives' tales
> and Newsnight ninnies getting in the way of what was really being
> said. It has failed completely, which I say with complete certainty
> having only scanned most of the documentation! But it has - it hasn't
> made the arguments plain, open and understandable. Nuclear, of
> course, is little to put up with in comparison with a frying planet if
> the small increases in ppm are actually so dangerous. Of course, if
> the IPCC is right there are very traditional ways to sort it out. A
> cull would work 'nicely'.
I don't share your optimism for nukes though. We might have great
safety standards in the west but there is no way we are going to be
able to control standards in , say, Romania, where they can't even run
a fucking orphanage despite being given 10 billion to sort that shit
out.
There was an interesting calculation done in the 1980 that instead of
looking at the financial benefits of nuclear power looked at an energy
use equation. It looked at the total energy consumed in extraction,
refinement and transport of ore; energy used in the construction of
the power station right down to the bricks and nails; the cost of
maintenance; energy usage of the workers getting to and from work;
decommissioning at the end of the station's life; and the safe
disposal of the spent fuel.
It concluded that the financial benefits relied on increasing energy
costs, but that the energy used as compared to the station's output
was negative.
Even-though modern design cost and new standardised methods have put
the calculation into the positive I still wonder how much of a
solution nuclear power represents?
chazwin
On Dec 23, 3:08 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Merry Xmas - I'm off down the pub for the real low down on globular
> worming.
globular worming,,,,, hic!!
Have a good one!
archytas
chance if we could throw over imperialism.
chazwin
I've not yet had the pleasure. Is Leslie Nielson any good?
archytas
of British and Russian Imperialism and 'balance of power' politics
impoverishing us all - we can safely ignore him now we are both free
of trivializing Marxism and driving Beamers! We may be unlikely rough-
riders of the evangelistic right Chaz, but let's face it, the trinkets
are just so nice. Over in the colonies from which you can claim
passport right, the vile commies are swooning the masses with health
care rights, so keep the musket trimmed, for the hoard will soon be at
our freedom to consume Chinese plastic once more and steal the very
carbon of life from our air.
I read the IPCC report (916 pages) yesterday, as the corporate commies
put taxis on double time and stocked the roads with anti-drink-driving
jobsworths of the nanny-state, keeping me away from the public house
of freedom. I have seen more convincing economic analysis, and as
these gentlemen are know scientifically never to reach a conclusion,
suggest we ring the sun with them and the IPCC scientists, measuring
temperature at the poles before and after.
chazwin
and maybe even Marx too.
I have to admit that I am not "free of driving" Beamers, but I am
nicely cynical.
My partner and I did our usual Xmas escape yesterday and saw 2 films
back to back at Brighton's "art" cinema. "White ribbon" was a pretty
damn shocking picture of a pre-WW1 `German village replete with local
Protestant type pastor - tying his teenage boy's hands at night so he
doesn't wank, the Baron whose wife does not understand him, the local
doctor fucking the mid-wife and fingering his own daughter. And a
series of mysterious tragedies and accidents. A beautiful picture of
the "good old days" - a society than was in need of a damn good clean
out. I was a good reminder of what Marx was reacting to. If you like a
good movie I recommend it.
The other one was Nowhere Boy, about Lennon's early life in Liverpool,
pushed and pulled from auntie Mimi to Mummy Julia, and all the angst
that went with it. It occurred to me that these days every third child
has a bigger bagful of shit to deal with, and all they get is a chance
to go on the Jeremy Kyle Show - if they are lucky. I enjoyed the film
but was glad to has seen it before "White RIbbon" as his petty
bourgeois teenage angst would have been less meaningful after the
repressive German village.
I suppose we can be thankful that we can wank ourselves silly without
fear of death by nervous exhaustion; don't have to wait a year before
our future father in-law gives his final nod; work ourselves to death
for the Baron and on his whim loose our jobs.... EH wait a minute -
same shit, different century.
I'm glad you so enjoyed the Malthusian IPCC report! I think the cinema
was a better choice.
archytas
pages of UN-style wank of names and sleazy acknowledgements - familiar
from my own ventures under such sponsorship. I ghost-edited a book on
domestic violence last year and could only conclude none of the
academics have any real idea what it is about or how useless our
bureaucracies are. No doubt 'White Ribbon' will turn up at 2 a.m.
midweek on Channel 4.
New Scientist tells us we shouldn't listen to idiots who have spent a
few hours surfing and take more note of the scientific journals. As
they say this, rows erupt over all kinds of 'scientists' refusing (on
all sides) to publish the actual evidence and methodologies and
accusations of trained people not being able to read spectrographs are
all over and they allow the net to be dominated by the barmy. Try
getting to a scientific journal without a university pass. Channel 4
has Baldrick trying to make sense of it for us. Now the Black Death
is down to climate change, rather supporting my notion it is about an
evolutionary cull. What bliss it is to know the postmodern is just an
eddy of crap from a distant decadence.
archytas
it is some combination of SOI,
solar wind, cosmic rays, UV, disturbances in the earth's magnetic
field, relative humidity
(propensity to form clouds), ocean turn-over and possibly things not
yet discovered, all of
which still needs to be sorted out. Since average global temperature
is sensitive to clouds,
I suspect that the combination acts as a catalyst for cloud formation
which then drives
average global temperature.
My guess is the CO2 does factor into the equation. What I'd like is
access to what is being worked on before the jerkoffs get in the way.
It would be interesting to examine the protocols of how people
generally and politicians reach conclusions on matters like this that
are at least potentially decidable by science.
chazwin
You can prove that CO2 is a GH gas in the kitchen, as well as many
other common gases.
But you need a physics lab to be able to measure the tiny amounts
involved to get an accurate appraisal.
As for global temperatures- we have no reliable data over a long
enough term to be able to make any accurate statements.
If the earth had an arse-hole, we could stick a thermometer into it.
(maybe there is an orifice in Glasgow?)
Sadly there is not. The big panic graph: the "hockey-stick" is a
mishmash of proxy data and weather station data.
The actual global warming evidence or around 1 degree is within normal
experimental error parameters.
Where do you go from there?
> ...
>
> read more »
archytas
Lots of other stuff might happen, like increased water-vapour ending
up as snow at the poles. The real questions are surely about why we
get our science in this corrupt manner and don't get to see much of
the arguments scientists are actually making.