RE: [Vo]:The Fallacy of arguments against Global Warming
_ From: John Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:12 AM To: vortex-l Subject: [Vo]:The Fallacy of arguments against Global Warming The problem with augments against Global Warming is they lack pragmatism. There are in the end 2 types of arguments against GW, one is that either it's cyclical or not (primarily) our fault or not happening 'yet', the other is that pollution is good, these again are of 2 types, helping nature with a carbon sink to help the fishes and plants (Which points out a good side of pollution but doesn't negate GW) and another that hopes to so severely fuck with the weather as to cause GW to stop an impending theorized ice age. Though it is a seriously bad idea to monkey with nature normally so I find it very foolhardy but at least the latter makes sense in a way. (And better ways exist) But the first type of argument fails to consider that the evidence of GW may be correct, and I haven't noted a refutation of the data that shows temperature in lockstep with CO2 nor a refutation that we are increasing CO2. The theories may be that something else is the cause of global warming such as the suns output (funnily enough meters show less sunlight getting to the ground not more) or a natural source of CO2 outgunning us. So, on the one hand, there is less solar energy getting to the ground, but on the other hand, Mars is heating up. Mars has little atmosphere, no clouds, and no discernable recent volcanic activity. Its reflectivity is constant. That means that the Martian temperature rise is a good indicator of increased solar output. The Earth’s reflectivity is changeable based on the extent of cloud cover. If the amount of sunlight reaching the ground has decreased, as you say, despite increased solar infusion, then we can conclude that it is caused by significantly increased cloud cover. That makes sense since higher surface temperatures will cause higher evaporation rates, and thus a more expansive cloud cover. What we have demonstrated then is that the Earth has a very effective self regulating mechanism to control temperature. The operation fits standard control system theory. It’s the same for everything from fly ball governors to op amps. The control system must first detect an error before it can implement a correction. The zone in which the correction is made is called the control band. There is a high control band and a low control band. Between them is the dead band where no control is required or generated. Control systems that are modestly damped will have overshoot, which is to say that operation will rarely stay within the ideal confines of the dead band. In Earth’s case it will alternate between cold and hot. There is a specific oscillation period for a control system which does not become apparent if the system is critically damped. The Earth is not critically damped in its thermal control system, and it exhibits a period of approximately 500 years. If, indeed, human activity has nudged the average temperature higher, the control system will generate all the more force “clouds” to bring it back down. You and others may be willing to argue that our activity has broken the control system. But, so far, there is no indication of that other than the speculation that pent up methanes and hydrides could over tax the control system. But these theories still don't propose that we should pump CO2 into the atmosphere to increase the temperature on earth and indeed most seem to think there is a problem but it's mainly caused by something else. But that doesn't invalidate it at all. The theory that there is no harm (yet) again doesn't try to show that there couldn't be, it simply argues that we aren't yet fucked, that's a pretty irresponsible argument. Unless timetravel is developed science will never be able to prove beyond a doubt what the future will bring, we can not really know what happened in the past either. There are sure to be scientists and evidence that disagree. But the case has been made very well and it is irresponsible to ignore it by throwing up a smoke screen, Does Al Gore gaining literal or political currency out of this invalidates it? And do you really expect me to hate Gore and side with Bush, are you high? Bush is not making my day in several areas. Would you really want to side with oil Execs interested in money over Green's interested in the planet and all it's inhabitants, you want me to believe the Greens are the bad guys, are you stupid? I thought you finally read my first post. I said I want us off oil dependency. I have a lot of time and money invested in that goal, but unfortunately with poor results. What experiments have you done? You want me (on a Free Energy list) to be for oil and pollution and against alternative energy, are you a moron? Most likely though you are like me, you find the idea of Global Warming uncomfortable, you like contrarian ideas that go
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacy of arguments against Global Warming
On 4/24/07, Jeff Fink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- *From:* John Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Sent:* Monday, April 23, 2007 10:12 AM *To:* vortex-l *Subject:* [Vo]:The Fallacy of arguments against Global Warming The problem with augments against Global Warming is they lack pragmatism. There are in the end 2 types of arguments against GW, one is that either it's cyclical or not (primarily) our fault or not happening 'yet', the other is that pollution is good, these again are of 2 types, helping nature with a carbon sink to help the fishes and plants (Which points out a good side of pollution but doesn't negate GW) and another that hopes to so severely fuck with the weather as to cause GW to stop an impending theorized ice age. Though it is a seriously bad idea to monkey with nature normally so I find it very foolhardy but at least the latter makes sense in a way. (And better ways exist) But the first type of argument fails to consider that the evidence of GW may be correct, and I haven't noted a refutation of the data that shows temperature in lockstep with CO2 nor a refutation that we are increasing CO2. The theories may be that something else is the cause of global warming such as the suns output (funnily enough meters show less sunlight getting to the ground not more) or a natural source of CO2 outgunning us. So, on the one hand, there is less solar energy getting to the ground, but on the other hand, Mars is heating up. Mars has little atmosphere, no clouds, and no discernable recent volcanic activity. Its reflectivity is constant. That means that the Martian temperature rise is a good indicator of increased solar output. The Earth's reflectivity is changeable based on the extent of cloud cover. If the amount of sunlight reaching the ground has decreased, as you say, despite increased solar infusion, then we can conclude that it is caused by significantly increased cloud cover. That makes sense since higher surface temperatures will cause higher evaporation rates, and thus a more expansive cloud cover. What we have demonstrated then is that the Earth has a very effective self regulating mechanism to control temperature. The operation fits standard control system theory. It's the same for everything from fly ball governors to op amps. The control system must first detect an error before it can implement a correction. The zone in which the correction is made is called the control band. There is a high control band and a low control band. Between them is the dead band where no control is required or generated. Control systems that are modestly damped will have overshoot, which is to say that operation will rarely stay within the ideal confines of the dead band. In Earth's case it will alternate between cold and hot. There is a specific oscillation period for a control system which does not become apparent if the system is critically damped. The Earth is not critically damped in its thermal control system, and it exhibits a period of approximately 500 years. If, indeed, human activity has nudged the average temperature higher, the control system will generate all the more force clouds to bring it back down. You and others may be willing to argue that our activity has broken the control system. But, so far, there is no indication of that other than the speculation that pent up methanes and hydrides could over tax the control system. So we should pollute until we get a signal which is totally undeniable? The scare tactics (which you mention later) aren't from those concerned with Global Warming, they say that it is fixable. There are scare tactics about but it's phony Terrorism not GW. But these theories still don't propose that we should pump CO2 into the atmosphere to increase the temperature on earth and indeed most seem to think there is a problem but it's mainly caused by something else. But that doesn't invalidate it at all. The theory that there is no harm (yet) again doesn't try to show that there couldn't be, it simply argues that we aren't yet fucked, that's a pretty irresponsible argument. Unless timetravel is developed science will never be able to prove beyond a doubt what the future will bring, we can not really know what happened in the past either. There are sure to be scientists and evidence that disagree. But the case has been made very well and it is irresponsible to ignore it by throwing up a smoke screen, Does Al Gore gaining literal or political currency out of this invalidates it? And do you really expect me to hate Gore and side with Bush, are you high? Bush is not making my day in several areas. Several areas? Ok so you are a Republican. Would you really want to side with oil Execs interested in money over Green's interested in the planet and all it's inhabitants, you want me to believe the Greens are the bad guys, are you stupid? I thought you finally read my first post. I said I want us off oil