Physics gets pretty fuzzy round the edges - this is pretty much the 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 On 22 Dec, 14:23, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Dec 22, 2:34 am, Sam Carana <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > >http://nov55.com/ntyg.htmlhasan apparently well-argued case for > > > 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. > > > > On 22 Dec, 01:46, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Hi Sam, > > >> 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! > > > >> On 21 Dec, 23:51, Sam Carana <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > Chazwin, > > > >> > 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 > > > >> > On Dec 22, 10:10 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > 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 > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
