Dr. Hamilton, The specific heat of water actually runs counter to your argument. If you look at what is being measured it is temperature not heat. Because it takes more heat/energy to raise the temperature of a molecule of water compared to CO2, we expect any heat coming in from the sun to cause a greater rise in the temperature in the CO2 than water.
Similarly, why do you feel the point on infrared radiation to be wrong? On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Robert Hamilton <[email protected]>wrote: > 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: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Backus > Sent: Friday, December 09, 2011 10:02 AM > To: [email protected] > 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" <[email protected]> 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: > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Backus > > Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 2:17 PM > > To: [email protected] > > 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 > > <[email protected] > > >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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Martin Meiss > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2011 9:37 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > 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 <[email protected]> > > > > > > > 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:[email protected]] > > > > Sent: Tue 12/6/2011 2:04 PM > > > > To: Robert Hamilton > > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > > 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 > > > > <[email protected] > > > > >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: [email protected] > > > > > 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 <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bowles, > > > > > > Elizabeth > > > > Davis > > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 12:07 PM > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > [[email protected]] On Behalf Of David L. McNeely > > > > > > [[email protected]] > > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 05, 2011 9:55 AM > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] What Can I DO?? Re: [ECOLOG-L] Message > > > > > > from > > > > Paul > > > > > > Ehrlich > > > > > > > > > > > > ---- Steve Young <[email protected]> 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. >
