Paul: Actually, the point about it not being about specific heat but infra-red absorption is not a good response, but I would not be overly critical because I am hardly immune to making such responses myself. Water is very well known for its heat absorbing properties as reflected by its specific heat (ie The heat required to raise the temperature of the unit mass of a given substance by a given amount (usually one degree).) The greater the specific heat, the more heat the molecule can absorb.
Don't let anyone use authority only as a means of convincing you of anything. Accept it if it serves your interests and assume the accompanying risk (if the authority is wrong, you wind up wasting your efforts, maybe your career) for your own sake. Rob Hamilton Robert Hamilton, PhD Professor of Biology Alice Lloyd College Pippa Passes, KY 41844 -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Backus Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 10:02 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from Paul Ehrlich Rob, That certainly seems to be a good mathematical point, but I can't help but feel it's an oversimplification of a very complex system. Your calculations certainly don't account for temperature feedback caused by water vapor, though that is a long-term trend. And as someone else pointed out on this list, climate change involves infrared absorption rather then specific heat. I'm not sure how much that would affect the values you're arrived at though. I'm far from an expert on this. Hell, I'm just a grad student. I am certainly enjoying this discussion though. It's one of the first I've wanted to jump in on. Paul Backus On Dec 8, 2011 4:19 PM, "Robert Hamilton" <roberthamil...@alc.edu> wrote: > Paul: > > I had to unsend this twice. Hope you only get the one copy. Definitely > time to wind this up! > > What you say sounds reasonable. However it is tangential to where I am > coming from. I also wonder if it is little more than a platitude that > justifies a proposition, but a statement for which there is also zero > empirical evidence. In any event this will be my last word on this. > > I can give a quick and dirty example of what I am trying to say. Let's > consider water vapour in the atmosphere at 2%. That's 20,000 PPM. > Let's also consider CO2 at 400PPM. The specific heat of water vapour > at 275°K is > 1.859 KJ/KgK and the specific heat of CO2 at 275°K is 0.819Kj/KgK, so > the specific heat of water vapour is 2.27 times that of CO2. So using > these numbers let's say 1 PPM CO2 = 1 greenhouse gas unit (GU). We > have 400 GUs for the CO2 in the air and 20,000 x 2.27 = 45,400 GUs for > the water vapour in the air. We have a total of 45,800 GUs of which > 400 are due to CO2, that's 0.0087, or 0.87% of the total greenhouse > effect is due to CO2. Let's double the CO2 to 800PPM and see the > effect. We now have 46,200 CUs of which 800 are due to CO2, that's > 1.7% due to CO2. Let's now leave the CO2 constant and increase the > water vapour to 2.1%, that makes the GUs due to water vapour 47,670, > an increase of 1870 GUs, which is about 4.7X the total effect of CO2. > > These kinds of very minor water vapour changes are common, can happen > almost instantaneously, and dwarf the effect of massive changes in > C02; and in an atmosphere with changes in water vapour an order of > magnitude more than that, ie from say 2 - 3%, (1% as opposed to .1%) I > don't see how CO2 changing from say 280PPM to 480PPM can have any real > influence on the greenhouse effect > > Rob Hamilton > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto: > ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul Backus > Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 2:17 PM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from > Paul Ehrlich > > My understanding of the situation is that water vapor can't function > as a driver for climate change, only as a response or feedback > mechanism. As atmospheric temperatures increase, more water vapor can > be held in the air, which will act as positive feedback for increasing > temperatures already observed. Any anthropogenic addition of water > vapor into the atmosphere will precipitate out rather quickly (on the > order of a few weeks, I believe), in any significant quantities. That > leaves the question that if water vapor isn't causing the warming > we've seen, what is? The available evidence seems to indicate to me > that CO2 at least has a significant correlation with warming, and is > likely a driver of climate change. Likely enough to require > significant action, at least, considering the consequences of doing nothing. > > Of course I could be wrong. Feel free to point out any mistakes I've made. > > Paul Backus > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Robert Hamilton > <roberthamil...@alc.edu > >wrote: > > > Martin: > > > > What you are suggesting here is that the proposition that CO2 > > increases are causing global warming must be accepted unless it is > proven false. > > This rhetorical tactic is common in social sciences, and thus it is > > hardly surprising to see it used here, but we Ecologists should know > > better. I have no problem with investigating the fact that there is > > a correlation between CO2 increases and global warming, however > > there are at least three things that need to be investigated with > > equal > veracity. > > 1) CO2 rises could cause global warming, 2) global warming could > > cause > > CO2 rises and 3) the correlation could be spurious. #1 is > > investigated to the exclusion of the other 2 because of political > > pressures. There are many people whose careers are vested in the > > proposition that CO2 causes global warming and it seems to me they > > feel the other two propositions are a threat to their livelihood. > > > > I don't buy #1 because when I look at the global greenhouse effect, > > water vapour is the #1 contributor by far. CO2 is relatively very > > minor, and if CO2 were eliminated from the atmosphere it may well > > have no effect on the overall greenhouse effect. I have looked at > > the models used to support #1, and I don't see any that look at the > > overall greenhouse effect, the relative effects of CO2 and the other > > gasses, particularly water vapour fluxes (the atmosphere is hardly > > static). When I do some simple calculations, it seems to me that the > > total effect of > > CO2 is insignificant given the effect of water vapour alone, and > > that's looking at an atmosphere with 2% water vapour when in fact it > > varies from 0 - 10% and averages about 2%; as far as I know. If > > that's just me, so be it. > > > > I don't care if people investigate CO2 as a cause of global warming, > > I encourage people to do so, what I object to is the demonization of > > people who want to look at other causes of climate change. I am > > opposed to the idea that current unsubstantiated C02 causes global > > warming argument MUST be accepted. The fact that there are zero > > empirical data to support the CO2 causes global warming argument and > > it is based 100% on unrealistic models of the atmosphere drives my > > skepticism. However, regardless of what I feel, #2 and #3 above > > should be investigated, as well as other possible human causes of > > global warming. If it were shown that CO2 does in fact cause global > > warming, I would obviously have to accept that fact, but I don't > > think it is rational to take the view that one must accept that CO2 > > causes global warming unless the conjecture is "proven wrong". You > > want to promote the proposition that CO2 causes global warming > > argument, you "prove it right"...at least make some elegant risky > > predictions and if they don't turn out, accept the falsification of the > > proposition. > > > > FWIW, Ehrlich was right about population, IMHO, but he went a little > > overboard on the immediacy and the nature of the consequences. A > > more open analysis on his part would have been more effective, just > > as in the present case of CO2 and its effect on the atmosphere. > > > > > > Robert Hamilton, PhD > > Professor of Biology > > Alice Lloyd College > > Pippa Passes, KY 41844 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > > [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Martin Meiss > > Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 9:37 AM > > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message from > > Paul Ehrlich > > > > Robert Hamilton, > > Your statement implies that we mustn't confuse causes with > > effects. Fine, but how do we tell what is really going on in > > phenomena as complex as global climate? I don't see how one can > > justify an opinion unless actually running a climate model, or > > subscribing to the results of a climate model. > > If cellular respiration were to rise as a result of temperature > > increase, would there be a corresponding rise in photosynthesis, > > which in turn would lower CO2 levels? If not, how long would it be > > before all available biomass was oxidized and cellular respiration would > > cease? > > What other forces would come into play, such as changes in cloud > > cover, ice > > cover, ocean currents, etc., in response to the initial change? If > > some > > of these factors had appropriate sign and magnitude, increasing CO2 > > level could actually lower temperatures. This is what modeling is > > all about. > > If your skepticism about the role of CO2 in climate change is > > supported by data and a climate a model, I think you should share > > the details with the scientific community. To do otherwise is like > > having the cure for a major disease but not bothering to tell anyone about > > it. > > > > Martin M. Meiss > > > > 2011/12/6 Robert Hamilton <roberthamil...@alc.edu> > > > > > I see no evidence that CO2 causes global warming. CO2 levels would > > > rise if we had global warming in any event due to increased > > > cellular respiration. I don't know what causes global climate > > > changes, all I know is that the global climate will always change one way > > > or another. > > > > > > Rob Hamilton > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: kerry Cutler [mailto:cutler.ke...@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Tue 12/6/2011 2:04 PM > > > To: Robert Hamilton > > > Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu > > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message > > > from Paul Ehrlich > > > > > > Dear Rob and the rest of Ecolog listserve, > > > > > > I am not a climate scientist, but am an ecologist. Your idea that > > > it is not CO2 causing global warming is not new to me and I know > > > that people put forth several other hypotheses for the current > > > global warming. I am curious about what research (a link to a > > > paper, > > > perhaps?) you know of to support your idea and what evidence you > > > have to invalidate some of the calculations on the absorptive > > > quality of > > > CO2 effects and some of the analyses that support the opposite > > > conclusion to yours (Philipona 2004, Evans 2006, etc...). > > > > > > For that matter, I would love to hear some evidence-based > > > arguments from the other side: What are some of the most > > > controversial issues surrounding this topic and what kind of > > > research could be done to improve upon our models and convince even the > > > most unshakable skeptic? > > > > > > I am sure that this is well discussed in other forums, but I would > > > be interested to have us consider it here. This seems like an > > > important enough issue to warrant some sensible intelligent > > > discourse and to leave out the rhetorical extravagance. Let's > > > give it > a shot. > > > > > > Kerry Cutler > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Robert Hamilton > > > <roberthamil...@alc.edu > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > I would not be much of a scientist if I accepted conjecture > > > > based solely on authority. My reason for not accepting the view > > > > that CO2 causes > > > current > > > > global warming is based on my acceptance of conjecture related > > > > to the effect of water vapour on the energy of the atmosphere, > > > > and it's > > > variation, > > > > relative to the effect of CO2, conjectures for which there are > > > > actual > > > data. > > > > I have done my own analysis for my own sake and come to my own > > > conclusions, > > > > but saying CO2 causes global warming to me is like saying > > > > someone > > > throwing > > > > a bucket of water into the Pacific Ocean in Hawaii caused the > > > > tragic > > > > > > Tsunami in Japan last year. > > > > > > > > As for attacking me personally, even if I worked for the coal > > > > industry itself, so what? If CO2 is not causing global warming > > > > it is > > > > > > not, what I > > > do > > > > has no effect on that. I am somewhat fortunate that I don't have > > > > to sell myself out to some political establishment though (I > > > > don't have > > > > > > to get grants from politically biased granting agencies). If I > > > > did research the issue I would probably look at things like > > > > "development" and the way we manipulate watersheds as a human > > > > cause of global warming over CO2, and > > > thus > > > > would fail, so I am lucky! > > > > > > > > Nice thing about where I work is that while we have a tiny > > > > endowment, our students graduate with the least debt of any > > > > school in the US. No Greek columns, no art galleries, no > > > > mahogany garbage cans, but then we don't force students into > > > > massive debt to support such things either. As for > > > the > > > > coal, IMHO the coal is worth more in the ground than it is to > > > > mine it presently, IMHO. Maybe after generations of being > > > > ruthlessly exploited by commercial and consumer interests for > > > > the sake of cheap > > > > > > electricity to > > > run > > > > air conditioners and computers, people around here might get a > > > > good > > > return > > > > on their labour once it starts costing a person like you the > > > > equivalent > > > of > > > > @2000.00 per month to heat your home to 68 degrees in the > > > > winter, > > > something > > > > that is just around the corner IMHO. > > > > > > > > The thing that bothers me about this sort of issue is the effect > > > > it has > > > on > > > > Ecology a a science though. I have seen go from being required > > > > in every school I have known to not being so required (it is > > > > here though), and I blame that decline on the emphasis on > > > > political hackery that has > > > developed > > > > in Ecology over the past generation. I applaud your desire to > > > > stand up > > > for > > > > your political view, but it they are not science and they are > > > > not > > > Ecology, > > > > and when any science exists to serve politics, it ceases to be > > > > real science, IMHO. > > > > > > > > Rob Hamilton > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on > > > > behalf of > > > David > > > > L. McNeely > > > > Sent: Mon 12/5/2011 1:49 PM > > > > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message > > > > from Paul Ehrlich > > > > > > > > Well, I don't know exactly how to respond to such a claim from a > > > > professional biologist. Could the importance of the coal > > > > industry to the endowment of Alice Lloyd and other economic > > > > entities in Kentucky have anything to do with this outrageous > > > > claim? How much credible science is needed to convince you? > > > > Does the fact that the world's leading climatologists and the > > > > National Academies of Science > > > > > > all disagree with > > > you > > > > matter? Does the fact that the "conflict" you claim comes from > > > > fewer > > > than > > > > 1% of all reports on the question, while those few reports lack > > > > credible analysis matter? > > > > > > > > Sincerely, David McNeely > > > > > > > > ---- Robert Hamilton <roberthamil...@alc.edu> wrote: > > > > > Science works to persuade when it provides real data, not weak > > > > > hypotheticals. Consider the issue of ozone vs CO2. Lots of > > > > > real data on ozone, nothing but political hackery on CO2, so > > > > > we get some action on ozone and nothing but conflict on CO2. > > > > > However, we are only as strong > > > as > > > > > our weakest link, so the CO2 argument defines us. > > > > > > > > > > Robert Hamilton, PhD > > > > > Professor of Biology > > > > > Alice Lloyd College > > > > > Pippa Passes, KY 41844 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > > > > > [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Bowles, > > > > > Elizabeth > > > Davis > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 12:07 PM > > > > > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > > > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message > > > > > from > > > Paul > > > > > Ehrlich > > > > > > > > > > Social and environmental psychologists have known for some > > > > > time now > > > that > > > > > knowledge does not change *behavior* and that information-only > > > campaigns > > > > > rarely are effective. This is because, as opposed to > > > > > commercial marketing campaigns, usually you are asking the > > > > > public to give > > > something > > > > > up, step out of social norms, or do something that does not > > > > > reap immediate benefits to them. This requires a completely > > > > > different approach, including removing perceived or structural > > > > > barriers to sustainable behavior. Ecologists should strongly > > > > > consider > > > collaborating > > > > > with psychologists on any outreach program in which a behavior > > > > > change > > > in > > > > > the public is the goal. > > > > > > > > > > See this paper in conservation biology: > > > > > > > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01766. > > > x/ > > > fu > > > ll > > > > > > > > > > and this website: > > > > > http://www.cbsm.com/pages/guide/fostering-sustainable-behavior > > > > > / > > > > > > > > > > and this report from the APA: > > > > > http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.a > > > > > sp > > > > > x > > > > > > > > > > Beth Davis Bowles, Ph.D. > > > > > Research Specialist > > > > > Bull Shoals Field Station > > > > > Missouri State University > > > > > 901 S. National > > > > > Springfield, MO 65897 > > > > > phone (417) 836-3731 > > > > > fax (417) 836-8886 > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > > > > > [ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely > > > > > [mcnee...@cox.net] > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 9:55 AM > > > > > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > > > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message > > > > > from > > > Paul > > > > > Ehrlich > > > > > > > > > > ---- Steve Young <syou...@unlnotes.unl.edu> wrote: > > > > > > Lawren et al., > > > > > > Unfortunately, I think you may be preaching to the choir. > > > > > > I'm not trying to be pessimistic, but if every ESA member > > > > > > were to follow through and commit to the 'doing something', > > > > > > instead of just 'talking more', what would that accomplish? > > > > > > Just going by the numbers, conservatively speaking, ESA > > > > > > membership is around > > > > > > 10,000 and > > > according > > > > > > > > > > > to the Census Bureau, the current population in the US is > > > > > > 312,718,825 ( > > > > > > http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html) So, > > > > > > what do we do about the other 312,708,000? > > > > > > I'm in the education arena and it is a question that I've > > > > > > been trying to figure out how to answer for a long time. I > > > > > > know advocacy is one way and something I work on all the time. > > > > > > Maybe this should be part > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > the focus of the 'doing something' approach. > > > > > > Steve > > > > > > > > > > I believe when we help to educate others we are doing something. > > > > > I'm funny that way, I guess. > > > > > > > > > > The difficulty comes when our educational efforts fail, as > > > > > they seem to be doing on this matter. So, I need help in > > > > > knowing what to do that will actually work. So far as > > > > > individual effort, I already try to buy only what I need and > > > > > to use old stuff. I minimize my fuel use by driving a Toyota > > > > > Prius, walking for local transportation when I can, > > > not > > > > > using air conditioning though I live in a very hot climate, > > > > > wearing > > > warm > > > > > clothing and keeping the house cool in winter ................ . > > > > > But I have not been able to persuade many others to engage in > > > > > the same actions. Reading and understanding the data that > > > > > come in seems unconvincing to so many. Science is only > > > > > trusted when it reinforces already held beliefs, even if less > > > > > than 1% of those claiming to be scientists provide the claims that > > > > > reinforce. > > > > > > > > > > So, what can I do? > > > > > > > > > > David McNeely > > > > > > > > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person(s) > > > > > or > > > entity > > > > to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or > > > > privileged material. If the reader of this message is not an > > > > intended recipient or > > > an > > > > agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, > > > > you are hereby notified that you have received this message in > > > > error, and that > > > any > > > > review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message > > > > is > > > strictly > > > > prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify > > > > the > > > sender > > > > immediately and delete the message and any hard copy printouts. > > > > Thank > > > you. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > David McNeely > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person(s) > > > > or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential > > > > and/or privileged material. If the reader of this message is not > > > > an intended recipient or > > > an > > > > agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, > > > > you are hereby notified that you have received this message in > > > > error, and that > > > any > > > > review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message > > > > is > > > strictly > > > > prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify > > > > the > > > sender > > > > immediately and delete the message and any hard copy printouts. > > > > Thank > > > you. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person(s) or > > > entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential > > > and/or privileged material. If the reader of this message is not > > > an intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to > > > an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have > > > received this message > > > > > in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or > > > copying > > > > > of this message is strictly prohibited. If you receive this > > > message in > > > > > error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message > > > and > > any hard copy printouts. Thank you. > > > > > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person(s) or > > entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or > > privileged material. If the reader of this message is not an > > intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to an > > intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received > > this message in error, and that any review, dissemination, > > distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If > > you receive this message in error, please notify the sender > > immediately and delete the message and > any hard copy printouts. Thank you. > > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person(s) or > entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or > privileged material. If the reader of this message is not an intended > recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to an intended > recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message > in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying > of this message is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in > error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message and any > hard copy printouts. Thank you. > The information transmitted is intended only for the person(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the message and any hard copy printouts. Thank you.
