_____
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 against the mainstream, you
like to pay lots of attention to little known evidence or concepts even if
they are mutually exclusive. (Though not a motive for me you may also use it
as a way to avoid guilt)
I want truth, honesty, and facts on this subject.
Instead, I see way too much hype, deception, and scare tactics.
Jeff
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.463 / Virus Database: 269.5.9/773 - Release Date: 4/22/2007
8:18 PM
